Overview:Requests for verification is a page for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing three citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic AKA sum of parts should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification AKA attestation, place the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good source.

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, meaning to prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use.

Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being "cited", or after a discussion has been "cited" for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.

Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed, indicating what action was taken.

Striking out the discussion header.

(Note: The above is typical. However, in many cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed".)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request may be archived to the entry's talk-page or to WT:RFVA. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk-page (using {{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}). Historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:impromptu, Talk:baggs.

Rfv-sense "To remove the fin from a shark, usually for use in cooking." The more correct form is "to fin a/the shark(s)". The gerund "shark finning" and the agent noun "shark finner" definitely exist and are not being RFVed. --WikiTiki89 06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Very common pattern of noun-verb conversion. Nothing guarantees that the process will lead to shark fin#Verb. You would think that such a verb could not be used intransitively and that the object would always be a shark. Something like "The fishermen sharkfin makos when ever they find them in their nets" might exist in the wild, but "The fishermen fin makos when ever they find them in their nets" seems more likely. DCDuringTALK 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose there could be uses such as "He shark fins all day," but I haven't found any. --WikiTiki89 18:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I had accepted that we need to attest to the present-tense or 'infinitive' forms, I don't think that is really true. If manner adverbs, like illegally in Ungoliant's example, modify a form of shark fin or there is a true past or passive, that would seem to be sufficient evidence that it is used as a true verb. DCDuringTALK 14:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, at the end of the day, everywhere you looked you could see at least one shark finning on the surface.

This one is ambiguous; it could be a verb ( […] at least one [of them] shark finning on the surface.), referring to finners mentioned in a previous sentence, or it could be a noun ( […] at least one [instance of] shark finning on the surface.). — Ungoliant(falai) 15:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

[…] and the nondescript few who wandered more or less aimlessly about the fifty-mile white beach that was Manaia, shark-finning, boiling bêche-de-mer, hunting hawk's-bill turtle.

Uses a hyphen. There you go: three cites, but two with issues. I’ll leave it to whoever closes the RFV to decide whether this term is verified.

If it passes, it definitely needs to be labelled rare. — Ungoliant(falai) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I would still feel more comfortable if we could attest the infinite, simple present, or past tense forms. --WikiTiki89 16:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Archer cite does not seem to be the same meaning, or even the same POS. It is a subject-verb use rather than an attributive noun-verb use. The shark is displaying his fin above the water, not chopping off his own fin with his pearly whites. SpinningSpark 18:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The fishermen quotation from Usenet immediately above seems good; the fishermen were shark finning. Thus, we now have two good quotations: the poachers one and the fishermen one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure they're English. The first quote for binioux is instructive: "...the bagpipes or binioux as they are known in France". The writer is obviously under the impression that binioux is the correct plural in French, and is using it as a French word. Being bad at speaking French doesn't change your French into English, it's just bad French. It would be like creating an English entry for buenas días because some people who don't speak Spanish very well think día is feminine. It looks to me like most, if not all, of these quotes are of people attempting to use the French plural for a French word, but getting it wrong (except for cointreaux, which apparently is the correct plural in French- see fr:cointreaux). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

To quote myself, mut. mut., in #-oth above (my post timestamped: 01:15, 18 January 2014), "I think that use of a plural-marking suffix in contexts that would be incorrect in the source language is a sign of its morphemity — it shows that the user of the suffix is thinking ‘[-x] marks a plural’, and not just that there are a bunch of listemes where the singular happens to end in [-u] and the plural meanwhile happens to end in [-ux]." Of course, uses of cointreaux in English do nothing to establish the morphemity of -x, since that plural could simply have been borrowed directly from French (rather than having been constructed independently in English). BTW, if *buenas días is attested in English, then yes, it should have some kind of entry (compare baristo). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of ambiguous. On one hand, it's productive use in English by English speakers. But on the other, those same speakers consciously intend to form a plural in a non-English way. Is it English if English speakers try to purposely apply French grammar to French words that are used in English? It's really not different from Latin or Greek plurals. —CodeCat 00:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody seems very convinced, and a year has passed, so I'm calling this RFV failed. Equinox◑ 16:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this really an adjective? allotted at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that many dictionaries make allotted in effect redirect to allot. AFAICT only WordNet shows it as an adjective, "assigned as a task" her allotted chores, but this seems to transfer meaning from the word modified to the modifier. Consider his allotted share of the garden. DCDuringTALK 20:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is well suited for RFV. I would like to see a precedent of deleting adjective sections from past participles via RFV or a Beer parlour discussion supporting such deletion via RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly well suited for a fact-based discussion. Either the word is attestably used as an adjective or it is not. The question of whether a term is an adjective is fairly clear cut and reasonable quickly resolved by resort to the facts of usage. The role of lawyerly argumentation is useful in evaluating the attestation evidence or in challenging the authority behind the criteria used. DCDuringTALK 11:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no purely attestation-based criteria necessary for adjectivity. An adjective does not need to be comparable and does not need to be modifiable by "very" and the like. RFD is not forbidden from being "fact-based". All criteria listed at Wiktionary:English adjectives are merely hints; none of the criteria is alone necessary and the criteria are not jointly necessary. If Wiktionary:English adjectives were applied to "allotted", google books:"become allotted" would suggest this to be adjective; nonetheless, I do not take Wiktionary:English adjectives very seriously. In any case, this does not fit my idea of proper use of RFV, which should IMHO above all be used to find whether a term or a sense are actually used to convey meaning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to ignore our non-legislated practice of requiring that an English adjective be comparable/gradable OR be used as a predicate OR have a sense distinct from the sense of the noun or verb form from which a separate identity is to be established. The predicate case is that hardest to apply for adjectives that are alleged to be conversions of past participles, because it often requires a high level of sensitivity to the language to reliably distinguish passive use of the past participle from predicate use of an adjective. This is the kind of thing that interpretation of actual evidence rather than armchair introspection and gum-flapping (let alone legislating) is well suited to resolving. DCDuringTALK 15:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the putative practice you speak of is a non-legislated practice, meaning it is, if it exists, not a result of a vote or a Beer parlour discussion. Now, any evidence of this being a common practice? Do you know of past RFV outcomes that fit this putative practice? How many are they? For the record, I oppose the use of RFV for this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course it can be an adjective, but I'm rather dubious about the comparative and superlative shown in the entry. Donnanz (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Why of course? It can be used attributively, but so can nouns and ing-forms and ed-forms of verbs.

Can it be shown to be gradable or comparative?

Can it be used after become or seem?

Is it ever unambiguously used as a predicate, ie, following a form of be with semantics clearly distinguished from a past participle used to form a passive?

Does it have a sense that is not present in the ed-form of the verb?

If it doesn't meet at least one of these tests we do not show it as an adjective. DCDuringTALK 11:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If it doesn't meet at least one of these tests we do not show it as an adjective.

I share your skepticism about comparability, but can it be used with very or too (gradability)? I don't think so. I've never run into usage that meets any of the other tests either, but there might be such usage. DCDuringTALK 13:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The allotted tasks are less challenging than the other job expectations; the latter have no specific time set aside for their accomplishment.

My days seem allotted either as a series of disasters and bad news, or boring montages of the same-ol'.

Each is allotted a colour according to its priority. - Amgine/ t·e 06:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Amgine: The first is attributive use of a past participle. (Would attested usage of "the circumnavigated globe" make circumnavigated an adjective?) The third is clearly a use of the verb in the passive. (Consider Each is allotted a color by rule of priority., which makes the agent explicit.) The second is the sole telling example. It could be argued that it is an ellipsis of the passive, but I think not. Three citations of such usage for each of the two senses would settle the matter. DCDuringTALK 13:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your reason would imply that cicumnavigated should be considered an adjective, given usage such as:

1965, G. B. Sansom, The Western World and Japan:

Not many years after the discovery of the Americas and the opening of the Cape route to India, Christian missionaries were making their way to almost every part of the now circumnavigated globe

There is a clear path to justifying treating this as an adjective: that it attestably meet at least ONE of the tests of adjectivity, such as those listed above (There may be more.). There is no amount of attributive use alone that would compel treatment of this as an adjective. DCDuringTALK 15:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

While I don't have an opinion on the rest, wouldn't the modifying element be now circumnavigated in that quote? - Amgine/ t·e 18:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Amgine: Yes, but circumnavigated is the head of the modifying phrase. I searched for "now circumnavigated" to reduce the portion of the ocean that I had to boil to find relevant citations. DCDuringTALK 18:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, as a sailor, I would certainly consider a circumnavigated globe as qualitatively different from an uncircumnavigated one, in a comparable way an explored region differs from an unexplored one, a painted versus an unpainted canvas. In a related manner, an allotted hour or day is different from one unallotted. And that's entirely apart from parliamentary usage (throughout the commonwealth), the standard euphemisms allotted span, allotted hours, or allotted days to indicate length of life (or 70 years, whichever comes first?), and of course GoogleBooks—whether religious, poetic, or otherwise. On another hand, your position that allotted is not adjectival is disputed by OED, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge... just wondering which authority is the basis for your position? - Amgine/ t·e 20:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears there is enough sourcing to support allotted as an adjective. User:DCDuring, why do you fight words ending in -ed and -ing being defined as adjectives when they're clearly attestable as such? Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker) 16:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: To avoid the need to maintain English entries that convey no semantic information. All English nouns can be used attributively; all English past participles and -ing forms can be used in a variety of predictable ways. Perhaps you would enjoy adding complete adjective PoS sections to all (I do mean ALL) English noun entries, -ing-forms and past participles and complete noun sections to all -ing-form entries. In principle, each sense of the lemma form of a verb should have an appropriately reworded corresponding sense in the adjective section located on the same page as the section for the past participle and the -ing-form. Mutatis mutandis for nouns. DCDuringTALK 18:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because it can be done doesn't mean it has to be done only by me, or immediately. What we just do is end the ridiculous deletion of -ed and -ing adjectives, and create more as needed. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be ALL, because, in practice, not all are used frequently enough to be attributable. Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker) 15:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed one sense as RFV-failed, and suppressed the comparative and superlative forms. The remaining sense has one good citation, and one iffy citation. It needs at least one more citation. Here's another iffy (rather verbal) citation: 1913, Engineering News, volume 69, page 344: As these lands became allotted, they were gradually cultivated through irrigation by a canal from the Yakima River, built in the earlier days by the Indians without outside assistance.- -sche(discuss) 21:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@DCDuring: what do you make of the two citations in the entry and the one citation I provide above? - -sche(discuss) 21:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The 1969 citation and the one above, with usage after become, seem supportive of an adjective interpretation. The other citation in the entry looks verbal to me. DCDuringTALK 22:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Assuming we play this little game absent from CFI, legislated by DCDuring, opposed by me and supported by some others:

As for DCDuring's "Can it be used after become or seem?" (I don't know why it would matter, but anyway):

1854, Mary Elizabeth Charles, ‎Mary, the handmaid of the Lord:

Whilst to others, were there not the family of God in the world, and the grace of God in the heart, no necessary task might seem allotted.

1901, Evelyn Abbott, A History of Greece - Volume 2:

Other words which seem allotted to certain places in the line receive this position because they are part of an established phrase: ...

1917, author?, Yale Sheffield Monthly - Volume 24:

But such doubtful blessings as foresight are not vouchsafed to us and I started to fulfill my task as it seemed allotted, come what might.

1967, author?, Advanced Report - Issues 8-9:

During the first hundred years or so, as settlements gradually increased in size and the land available in the original grant became allotted and subdivided through inheritance, small groups split off from the parent villages

1996, Dorothy Whitelock, English Historical Documents:

... but the process by which dues had become allotted to the individual churches or minsters and ceased to be administered for the diocese by the bishop is obscure, ...

2002, F. B. Meyer, Jeremiah: Priest and Prophet:

... who would by that time have become allotted to their captors and would seek to win the smiles of their new lords by ...

Sense "(poetic) virginity, chastity." Sure. I'm putting it on my list of I wouldn't know where to start looking and I don't have a clue how it would be used if it is really used. Cites, please.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of all 6 pages of Google Books results for "her thyme" -herb -garlic -cottonwood, these are the only results that look plausible to me: [1][2][3]. More context for the third result can be seen here. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The cites might fit a definition like "fertility or sexuality". I don't see "chastity". DCDuringTALK 00:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it's hard to draw the line between symbolism and lexical meaning, and harder still to pin down the meaning of metaphorical speech- but a line has to be drawn. There are lots of poems that refer to beautiful women as roses, and also refer to the "thorns" encountered when they're "plucked" . That doesn't mean we should have senses at rose, thorn or pluck that capture this usage.

To put it another way: the plant known as thyme may symbolize virginity and chastity, but the term "thyme" doesn't necessarily mean "virginity and chastity" as a word. The former is the realm of an encyclopedia, the latter the realm of a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Poetry provides the poorest attestation for contemporary English, ambiguity, allusion, metaphor, and prosody often confusing matters enormously. Also IMO metaphors are often given too much weight in our RfVs. The distinction between "live" metaphors and "dead" ones is worth keeping in mind, even though it is sometimes hard to distinguish between "live" and "dead".

I'm not exactly sure how to handle the symbolic meanings of colors and natural things, as, for example, seems to have been common in the Middle Ages, possibly especially in Christendom. DCDuringTALK 15:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I based this entry on the old Irish song "A Bunch of Thyme". There is a very detailed analysis of this song at http://www.irishmusicdaily.com/bunch-of-thyme which clearly states its use as a euphamism for virginity and/or purity.--Dmol (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dmol: Interesting article, but some of the other actual usage doesn't seem to me to quite fit "virginity".

Also, the song is in English. Is it an adaptation of an older Irish song? Did "thyme" have some specific association with virginity in Irish culture? DCDuringTALK 14:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The article actually says: "Thyme represents the girl’s purity and consequently it represents her hopes and prospects for future happiness." This is metaphor, not a meaning of the word. Dbfirs 13:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it lexical information to include as a definition the symbolic meaning of the thing represented by a word (and its synonyms), ie, a synset? Would only an entry be merited only for the language(s) of the culture(s) in which the symbolic meaning existed, at least at one time.

I would think that only when the symbolic meaning has somehow transferred from the referent itself to one or more of the synset would a definition be warranted. So if blue were at one time a symbol of sadness, at some time the meaning transferred to the word, which now has the sense "sad". I certainly doubt that thyme ever remotely approached that kind of meaning transfer. Note also that near-synonyms for the color blue are not near synonyms for sad. DCDuringTALK 13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added two quotes from traditional songs, one from the 17th century and another later one from (i think) the 19th. I also added two references, one as discussed above and another I found. There is another website, http://www.irishpage.com/songs/thyme.htm , that makes the same connection and give the original Irish language lyrics. I also changed the definition to say that it is "an allegory..." which seems more accurate. --Dmol (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Finnish: "A selfie taken through a mirror, especially one that is published in the internet."

Nominated on 26 April 2014.

What about Finnish teinipeili and meitsie? Can you find the results on books or on groups? --88.251.11.42 05:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Teinipeili (lit. "teen mirror") has been around for years and finding three quotes in newspapers would be a piece of cake. First internet appearances of meitsie seem to be from January this year, and thus it does not fulfil our "spanning over one year" -criteria.--Hekaheka (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Turkish word 'sanalgı' has been around for years and you may find three quotes in newspapers [4] but it was deleted. Is it not same with 'teinipeili'?--12:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No quotations in the entry, no quotations in this RFV. Please add quotations or this will be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hekaheka: could you add some citations, please? I couldn't find any on Google Books or Issuu, and I only found one citation on Google Scholar, but you have better access to Finnish newspapers and the like than I do. - -sche(discuss) 01:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Allright, I'll get the quotes. Meanwhile, some numbers. Teinipeli gets 50,000+ Google hits in a direct search. English is at least 100 times as big as Finnish as measured by the number of speakers. Thus, an English word relatively as frequently used should get at least 5 M hits. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Hekaheka: note that {{ping}} does not work lately for some reason; it did not ping me.

I see three quotations at teinipeili, formatted accoring to WT:ELE, providing the date and identifying the source. I do not know whether they are from permanently recorded media (WT:ATTEST), but I do not contradict the claim. The safe core of permanently recorded media is Google books and Usenet, which they are not from, but again, they may still be permanently recorded and lie outside of the core. What makes you think they are permanently recorded? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No. 1 is a university dissertation published both in book format, of which ISBN is provided, and in pdf-format for which the URL is provided in the quotation

No. 2 is from the blog series of the Institute for the Languages of Finland, the official guardian of the purity of Finnish language. Their (electronic only!) dictionary is to Finnish what OED is to English. They archive permanently everything they publish.

No. 3 is from the pages of YLE, the national broadcasting company. They, too, archive everything that they have published in the electronic era, and they have also made a lot of their earlier productions available through internet, see here: [5] The pages are in Finnish, but if you type "teinipeili" in the search window you get links to the YLE articles in which the word is used.

As for durability, I am not really sure, but I think it is fine with me; any other input?

However, the following is a mention, not use: 'This type of picture may be called "selfie" but also teinipeilikuva (lit. "teen mirror image") or more shortly teinipeili.' --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

True, it is a mention, but it is a mention in a linguistic article in the e-mag of Kotus. The purpose of the quotes in RFV process is to prove that the word exists. What would do it better than this type of an article? Anyway, I have added one more quote and there are three uses. I would very much prefer to keep this "mention" as well. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hekaheka said in April 2014: First internet appearances of meitsie seem to be from January this year, and thus it does not fulfil our "spanning over one year" -criteria

Three quotations are in the entry but they are not from durably archived sources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Define "durably archived", and explain to me in which sense they are worse than the quotes provided for "selfie". The quotes for meitsie are from the pages of three well-established newspapers. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I remember cases where we have accepted postings from discussion groups. All but one of the current quotes for "selfie" are from non-print sources, one even appears to be a transcript of a radio programme. All three newspapers I quoted are print newspapers but the quotes are from their web pages. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Hekaheka: The safe core of "permanently recorded media" (WT:ATTEST) is Google books and Usenet. Usenet is a collection of discussion groups. Not any and all discussion groups on the Internet are considered permanently recorded media.

Can you please format the quotations at meitsie as per WT:ELE, especially providing dates, author, and work title? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Now done, sorry for the delay. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:Hekaheka It is now apparent that the quotations in meitsie do not meet the "spanning at least a year" requirement of WT:ATTEST. Furthermore, the quotations seem to be mentions, not uses: "Santtu Toivonen has claimed the fatherhood of meitsie. First, he asked for proposals from his Facebook friends. Other suggestions he got included omis, omakas, itsi, itsari, itsukka, meikkis, meitsis, meitzu, peilaus and peilitsu" talks about the word and mentions other words that could have been used instead of that word. Similarly, 'I wonder if "meitsie" will become to primarily mean such self portraits which the speaker doesn't take quite seriously himself…' seems to talk about what the word is going to mean rather than using the word to convey meaning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a new word, still chiefly used in speech and in non-permanently recorded media. Therefore, it is not so odd if majority of permanently recorded uses are from articles that discuss the word itself. I would turn your argument upside down: if media such as the country's leading newspaper (Helsingin Sanomat) and the homepages of the guardian of Finnish language (Kotus) publish an article about it, it is most likely used. Also, 74,000 Google hits and hundreds of hits in picture search for e.g. "meitsie 2015" must count as something. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Further, you may want to reflect what the word "or" means in our definition of attestation criteria:

clearly widespread use, or

use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year

In the previous paragraph (including "it is not so odd if majority of permanently recorded uses are from articles that discuss the word itself"), you are arguing against WT:ATTEST, claiming that WT:ATTEST is too strict, right? I am not convinced by the arguments; we should not include emerging neologisms at any and all costs; they should meet WT:ATTEST, IMHO.

As for clearly widespread use, my position is that "meitsie" is a Finnish neologism that is not in clearly widespread use, and that "clearly widespread use" item of WT:ATTEST is for such obvious cases as "dog" or "city".

Maybe the hot word lovers ({{hot word}}) will come here and arbitrarily declare this to be a hot word, and thereby defy most of attestation requirements (durably archived, used rather than mentioned, spanning a year); I don't know.

One more thing. Citations:meitsie does not get deleted even if this RFV fails. I have copied your quotations there to prevent their accidental lost. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The first three quotations in meitsie seems to be uses, not mentions, so they meet this requirement of CFI. I make no comment about their being durably archived. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't confirm the existence of this word in Japanese. --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад) 13:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I found a couple of works related to Shinto and Japanese mythology that use 隱身 in Japanese (not read おんしん but かくりみ, though): [6][7][8]. Whym (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Whym: thanks. With this reading it makes more sense, it's also in 隱身@Weblio.jp. Apparently it's a Shinto term. Could you improve the definition, please? --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад) 01:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you look at the edit history, it was created by 2.220.125.207 back in 2012. Any time you find something in our Japanese entries that's wrong in ways that just don't make sense, the odds are it traces back to this same person. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Note also that the initial character here, 隱, is the obsolete kyūjitai for 隠. As such, the entry at 隱身 should only ever be a stub entry marked as {{alternative spelling of|隠身}}, directing readers to the lemma entry content at 隠身.

I haven't done much research on this, but 隱形 (隠形) probably has the same problem. Whym (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Whym: Thank you! I see you're using {{ja-altread}}. I haven't used it before @Eirikr: has some other way to put together terms with multiple reading but I don't remember exactly. Just by repeating the headword on two lines? --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412: That citation is a translation of an old Chinese work, which would probably support my suspicion as to the source of the term. I really don't think that hyponymic translations should be used to justify overly specific definitions, unless we are to completely write off our role as a monolingual dictionary. DCDuringTALK 13:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, the book does not actually use plum blossom as a translation for the flower of Prunus mume, but rather mei-flower, as the translator explains in the introduction (page lv therof). DCDuringTALK 13:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Japan holds flower festivals during many months of the year, beginning with that of the plum blossom (Prunus mume) in February and ending with that of the chrysanthemum in November, but the most popular is that of the cherry blossom which falls in early April.

Hsiang Sheng-mo (1 597-1 658), "Prunus mume" (mei hua) in "Landscapes, Flowers, and Birds." The plum blossom that bloomed against the naked wood was the sign of spring and renewal.

I can't say whether this is idiomatic, since the fruit of the plant is an apricot, which is technically just a pale plum. bd2412T 13:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps context is an issue. Among native speakers, plum blossom would seem to be understood as "flower of the Prunus mume" only in the context of discussions about oriental flora, the Orient itself, and in reference to products or art associated with the Orient. I suppose it could all be done in a usage note. I can only hope that the translations respect the narrowness of the usage. DCDuringTALK 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. In any case, this only differs from sense one in that it identifies a specific species of plum blossom. bd2412T 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That the fruit of Prunus mume is called a Japanese apricot and the tree goes by that name as well is sufficient, I suppose. I have added some material to the entry to clarify some of what is idiomatic about it. DCDuringTALK 19:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Prunus mume is really neither an apricot nor a plum, but something without a clear one-to-one English translation, except the lesser-known loanwords ume and mei. Botanically, it's definitely much closer to the apricot, but judging from the Wikipedia article, most of the culinary products use plum in the English name. From this I would guess that "plum" is the older, more established usage, but "apricot" is the current prescriptivist favorite. I don't think that the "it's an apricot, not a plum" argument is sufficient in itself to prove that it's idiomatic, but I'd be curious how references to the blossoms of Prunus salicina are translated, since that's the Japanese fruit most solidly identified in English usage as a plum- in the US (at least in California, where I live), it's actually far better known than the original European plum, Prunus domestica. The blossoms have deeply iconic cultural significance with both the Chinese and Japanese, and so are more likely to be found in English translations, while those of Prunus salicina are no doubt of secondary importance to the fruit. By the way, I'll have to see if I can spend some time sorting through our East Asian fruit tree terms, since many of them seem to be either confused or vague. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Prunus mume more or less specifies the bearer of the blossom. Simple vernacular terms often refer to more than one species, sometimes to different genera, families, orders, even classes and phyla. Chinese plum is an example, by no means exceptional. The set of English vernacular names that have a one-to-one correspondence to species names not only doesn't cover many species, but also is often not used except in limited contexts, though many of the contexts are in print. The English vernacular names for species not native to English-speaking lands are a challenge as there may be one or more "official" names; names based on similarity of appearance to a species that is native to English-speaking lands, qualified by one or more adjectives associating it with a region (eg, Japanese, Chinese); and transliterations of non-English names.

Plum blossom is one of a narrower set of terms that have a connection to vernacular names, but also a cultural meaning in a culture that has a strong cultural influence on the English language. DCDuringTALK 11:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Citations have been provided above; the question seems to be whether or not the term is SOP. Shall we move to RFD? - -sche(discuss) 05:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Back in December 2013 someone questioned the existence of ap as an English adjective meaning "In or relating to the apothecaries' system of measures", but nothing more was done about it, so now I'm bringing it here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To start off, here are a few hits in reference works: here, here, and here, and one use: here. Maybe not complete by CFI standards, but at least enough to show it wasn't made completely up. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes... that's the 1959 English-Irish Dictionary, which is as near to the Official Modern Irish dictionary as is available. (Ó Donaill's Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla is the other half, from almost twenty years later, and doesn't include this word, although diosc and liosta are both present.)

Which leads to an awkward situation: anyone looking up "discography" in the closest thing to an official dictionary of Irish will find dioscliosta. And just because it hasn't shown up in print yet, it's appearing in other places and a print appearance would seem to be a matter of time. If someone can find it in a citable medium, then no harm, no foul. If not... I dunno. --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not listed in the 1959 English-Irish Dictionary; the link above points to Foras na Gaeilge's new English-Irish dictionary. Irish is an LDL, so a single mention is sufficient for it to pass RFV, but since Foras na Gaeilge coins its own Irish words in response to a perceived gap in the language (rather than waiting for speakers to develop terms naturally and then reporting them), I'm not inclined to take its word for the realness of this term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It is once you get used to how that site is organized. The pages that say "New English-Irish Dictionary" beneath the focloir.ie logo belong to the new dictionary. The Ó Donaill and de Bhaldraithe databases are at breis.focloir.ie, e.g. http://breis.focloir.ie/en/eid/discography. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The phenomenon itself is thoroughly plausible, since many plants in the family that limes belong to contain photosensitizing substances- but I only found one usenet post, which linked to an online article, which referred to a journal article published in 2010. It looks like a one-off descriptive phrase that never caught on. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

New England Journal of Medicine [19] Margarita Photodermatitis - 1993 (yes this is a somewhat different term; seeing if it should be added or left alone, if these are being deleted; there's also the alternate meaning for "lime disease" being phytophotodermatitis from the fruit 'lime' (shown in some of the links above))

Not in this case. Slovene is not an LDL so we need three real citations of usage. But we probably won't find any because this is a dialectal term that would not likely be used in published texts. —CodeCat 21:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: "We all know what RFV is for.": As you can see, many people have a poor idea of RFV. Nothing wrong with being clear and explicit so that even newbies can know what is going on, which you call "overly formal". --Dan Polansky (talk)

Indeed, people sometimes post things here asking to verify the pronunciation, which isn't the job of this page. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't post "asking to verify the pronunciation", I know the pronunciation in Sallaands and Twents differ (I was born less than 1 kilometre from the huus/hoes-isogloss). I asked for verification of the "Usage note". If you don't want people asking for verification of dubious claims, perhaps you should propose to rename this page. --80.114.178.7 05:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I mean it passes WT:COMPANY as "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." It's attested as town in Finland. It would seem trivial to type these citations up. I just said it passes, I never claimed to have typed the citations up. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

the use of the company name. The city sense is not the use of the company name. -- Liliana• 09:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this RFV nomination. This is a very unwise nomination. These entries are single-word ones, capable of hosting lexicographical material such as etymology, pronunciation and translation into other languages; multiple of the nominated items already do. WT:COMPANY is not supported by consensus, as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. WT:COMPANY is not a plain RFV regulation; it is one that places additional hurdles on company names, for reasons that I still do not undertand and that are IMHO not explained at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. The opposers have not explained why company names must be excluded while place names can be included. The arguing in the vote is along the line "we need some rules or else will have too many company names", but the opposers have not proposed any rules, and have not explained what is wrong with having a large number attested single-word company names. As for plain RFV nomination, all terms are clearly in widespread use, and RFV does not apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It may have been added without prior discussion, but nobody removed it. The above-linked vote on your proposal has failed with 9 opposes against 8 supports. Which for me indicates that the community feels that WT:COMPANY is still in force, and supports keeping it in place for the time being. And even if the policy is changed, the citations collected here (or lack thereof) can still be useful to make drafting the new policy more of an evidence-based discussion instead of armchair consensus-building. — Keφr 12:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that no one removed the offending part from the CFI after it was added is wholly immaterial. I for one never felt comfortable making changes to a policy page that said at the top of the page that changes should not be done without a vote. For some time, I naively thought that CFI was really based on consensus; I only discovered later that it was not so. As a result, I set up a multitude of votes to remove things from CFI that were not supported by consensus. Some were a pass, some were a fail. Some of the best examples of things that were in CFI for ages with most people not taking them seriously is the attributive-use rule, removed via Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities. The trick of adding stuff to policy pages and hoping that people will not remove them for the fear of edit war was tried in Wiktionary multiple times by various editors, with a considerable success. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, which rule could be applicable here but I vote keep all and I think we should keep all notable one word company names for the same reason we keep countries and place names. People are likely to look them up, search translations or want to find etymology, pronunciation. The more linguistic info such entries contain, the more important and interesting they are. --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад) 23:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have added four citations for Hyundai which I believe meet our strictures for brand names. bd2412T 15:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Alleggedly means "courage". I request attesting quotations per WT:ATTEST. This was already once in RFV, but the RFV closure was irregular and no attesting quotations were provided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the previous discussion DP refers to is at Talk:big_balls. Equinox◑ 20:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of what "balls" means, I request evidence in the form of attesting quotations that the phrase "big balls" is actually attested to mean courage, as per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us have a look. I'll take the 1st quotation and replace "big balls" with X, and let us see whether the quotation suggests X means courage. The result is this: "Biffy says, “You've got X for a girl Bubbles. I like your style. Give it to him. Juicy's rotten, but Bubbles. You've got the scevusa on your hands now.” Bubbles drops the hot dog, and calls Biffy and Juicy some un-young ladylike words.". Now, do you think it can be inferred from the sentence that X means courage? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do, actually. Do you not? Certainly it is clear from two of those quotes that it's not a literal reference to body parts. The other quotes are similar: they are general approbations with a clear meaning. Unless you are demanding one of the quotes from a dictionary of slang, or a quote of something like "He showed that he had big balls by standing up by which I mean he was very brave" or something equally awful. (I'll grant that the quote you copied here could be reduced to the first two sentences, but I wanted to find a balance between excluding context, and including too much.) --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 09:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I certainly do not require dictionary quotations, since that is not what WT:ATTEST allows. I cannot really infer the meaning of "courage" from the quotations, but then I am not a native speaker. Let other editors comment on the merits of the provided quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, [big] balls (without the) doesn't simply mean courage: sometimes it means assertiveness, but usually means gall, nerve or chutzpah. A former employer of mine used to say things like "you've got balls the size of an elephant to complain about that" Chuck Entz (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Does mythology count as a fictional universe? 'Cause I really don't think these guys' names are used out of context in an attributive sense, in either English or Irish. (So this RFV applies to both languages and if it fails, I'm requesting that the whole pages be deleted.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oy vey, there are 74 pages in Category:en:Irish mythology, many of which could probably be subsumed under this RFV, but I just don't have the time to go through them all now. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't count mythology as a fictional universe. People misuse the word fictional to mean anything that (in their belief) is not factual, but really fiction implies a specific genre, in which the plot is intended to be understood as not being factual. --WikiTiki89 22:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, old mythologies are different from fiction, and I dispute that WT:FICTION applies to old mythologies. Certainly, all of WT:FICTION's examples are works of (modern) fiction rather than mythologies. For new stories which are mythological/religious stories according to some and fictional stories according to others (e.g. the stories of Gerald Gardner or L Ron Hubbard), the situation is less clear.
We do have a separate policy that "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." But there's disagreement on whether or not that policy should be enforced when the person in question was important to a mythology or religion — see WT:RFD#محمد بن عبد الله — so "Lugaid mac Con Roí" is potentially still in a grey area. (Bah.) - -sche(discuss) 01:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with an interest in Irish Onomastics, I'd say that the name elements are dictionary-worthy, but to include a full person's name as a name seems encyclopaedic and out of scope. See, eg, Badb: As a word, it's the name of a goddess. For further details, history, great feats, symbology, etc, etc; the Wikipedia entry exists.

In this instance, Lugaid is a name. Cú Roí is a name. Lugaid mac Con Roí is a person. He serves as an attestation of the name elements, an example of them in use, but this place is a dictionary, not a who's-who.

Similarly, I'd say that Finn is a lemma, definition "an Old Irish name, Descendants Irish: Fionn", but Finn mac Cumail, or Fionn mac Cumhail, or Finn MacCool are not. He's an attestation of the name, and there might be an argument for a (not-exhaustive) list of noteworthy bearers of the name, but I submit that we distinguish between names as words, and names as people. --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 01:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Conall is a name, cernach is an adjectival byname (from cern (“victory”, noun)), both are in scope. Conall Cernach is a person, and is something for Wikipedia to deal with.

At some point I want to go through and add Irish names in some sort of almost systematic way. I can probably work on decomposing some of these mythical names first. Names like Conchobar, Fergus, Finn, Conall, and Cairbre are not uncommon in the Annals, so that should be easy enough. Manannán is only a god's name as far as I know, but it's attested well enough as well. --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 23:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think so. 'make out' = "succeed, turn out well/as expected"...I can certainly see this used in certain contexts. For instance: I took Jennifer out for the first time last night. As you know, I've been trying to get in her panties for a long time. (Friend): Yeah, so did you make out? --this could also be interpreted as "Did you kiss each other/have a make-out session. Leasnam (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

But that's just because of the context. You can't say that the word "succeed" means to "to have sex", just because it can also be used in that context. --WikiTiki89 01:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

MWO has this as sense 2 a.[20]; vocabulary.com has a sense like this as well[21]. Some other dictionaries have senses involving necking. Making a deeper search for quotations could be worthwhile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It has no bearing on the rfv, but this term is an etymological train wreck. In Ancient Greek, παρασκευή (paraskeuḗ) simply meant preparation, and was probably closer in pronunciation to "paraskewe". In Judaic contexts such as biblical translations it could refer to the day before the Sabbath, when observant Jews would prepare everything so they wouldn't have to work on the Sabbath itself. Since the Sabbath is on Saturday, that makes the term a very restricted synonym for Friday, but probably not a common one outside those contexts. The widespread adoption of Christianity and thus the change to being the general Greek word for Friday approximately coincided with two sound changes: υ between vowels became v, and η became i.

That means that "paraskeve" meaning "Friday" would require combining elements from different time periods, while "paraskevi" would mean using Modern Greek in a context which is normally strictly Ancient Greek. User:Pyprilescu tried to avoid the issue by moving to a compromise spelling, not considering that we go by usage rather than by etymological correctness. I suspect that whoever coined the term looked up Friday in a Modern Greek dictionary, and the "paraskeve" was an attempt to normalize the Modern Greek romanization, "paraskevi" to the way Ancient Greek is romanized in scientific terms.

At any rate, I think the best course of action is to treat this as an rfv of all the spellings of the term. If any of them passes (paying careful attention to the use/mention distinction), it should be moved to the most common spelling that passes and any other spellings that pass should become alternative spellings. If none of them pass, it should be moved to Appendix:Unattested phobias. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I shouldn't have talked about commonness without knowing anything about how the ancient Greeks referred to the different days. If I had to guess, I'd say it would be some derivation from ἕκτος (héktos). I vaguely recall reading something about the custom of naming days after gods being a later borrowing from a foreign source. Chuck Entz (talk)

Pedantic point, but I think the days were named directly after the planets and thus only indirectly after the gods. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

True. After looking at the article on the w:Attic calendar and w:Roman calendar, it occurred to me that there may not have even been a widely-used system of 7-day weeks in Greece until the Romans instituted theirs in the early years of the Roman Empire. The earlier Roman nundinal week was based on an 8-day system, but I see nothing mentioned for Greece except the division of lunar months into thirds. I'm sure the Greeks were well aware of the 7-day systems of the Near East, but I wonder if anyone really used them. The lack of an accepted Ancient Greek name for Friday would certainly explain why a Modern Greek name was used. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that the incorrect plural (I wouldn't call it "malformed", since it is the regularly formed plural of a noun with a slightly irregular plural) is used occasionally in both Hebrew and English, but it is nevertheless still a plural of apikoros. --WikiTiki89 16:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved from RFD. It literally means the world's oldest profession, and reference to prostitution seems to be always an explanation rather than euphemism. I’m wondering whether there is a euphemistic usage without directly mentioning prostitution. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji: would you consider usages such as above euphemistic? Also, would translations from other languages count, such as the 2nd example? --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад) 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The sentences above don’t sound very natural, but I think it is attested. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I also do not recognise it, but I would know what its referring to if used in context, and it seems very plausible. It looks like a diminutive (or child-language form) of ding-dong, using the first element + -y. Though i dont withcall it per se, im sure i must have heard it over the years....somewhere...Leasnam (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

w:Ruth Wallis recorded a song called "Davy's Dinghy", which is full of double-entendres based on this sense, but it obviously doesn't attest the spelling. It's not easy verifying anything, because the adjective sense is very common, and because the boat is spelled in a variety of ways.

This sense is attested with the spelling dingie, which has less interference from the adjective and boat senses, but I was also finally able to find this and this, this and this.

The entry needs work, since there are two pronunciations, at least one more sense, and more etymologies:

RFV of both senses in the English L2. I can't find any evidence of the cigarette sense, and nothing for the Haida sense that unambiguously uses it as a noun and not some sort of title. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Added three citations for the cigarette sense, but at least one has it in italics, suggesting code-switching. Equinox◑ 16:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's easy finding English sentences using this spelling, but much harder deciding whether the term is being used as English or as Vietnamese. I'll see if I can come up with some good examples. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I view this as a kind of test case. I won't challenge other terms with similar orthography if this turns out to be attestable. If it is attestable, we should create the category of which it is currently the sole member. DCDuringTALK 15:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Would Hà Nội or Việt Nam (with Vietnamese diacritics) be attestable as English terms? In any case, we have examples of Romanian, Turkish, etc., etc, spellings used in English, Japanese macrons, e.g. Tōkyō are also common. It's hard to verify, though. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад) 00:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Two tests I’ve seen people using to determine whether the author considers the term a loanword instead of a foreign word are:

the term is unitalicised;

the inflected forms of the term use English desinences.

Number 2 is inapplicable in this case, since nước mắm is uncountable. As for unitalicised uses, I’ve only found this one. — Ungoliant(falai) 01:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

RFV of the noun sense synonymous with blasphemy. I'm having trouble finding a single lemming at OneLook that lists a noun blaspheme or a non-scanno/typo usage of blaspheme as a noun at b.g.c. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Such blaspheme" finds a handful, but they all look like errors to me. Equinox◑ 20:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In Middle English blasfeme (“blasphemy”). See blaspheme in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 where it is a noun. DCDuringTALK 23:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Century Dictionary's noun (and adjective) entries list only Wyclif and Chaucer as authors, so maybe it should be moved to a Middle English section. If it can be found in Early Modern authors, then maybe it should be tagged "obsolete". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The OED marks this sense as obsolete, with the latest cite from 1583 (Poems of T Watson). It looks more like Middle English to me. Dbfirs 08:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's from 1583, that's well into Early Modern English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I wasn't convinced that Thomas Watson was using Chancery Standard because he also wrote in Latin and studied law, but he was educated at Oxford, so he would be using Early Modern. There's another cite from W. Bonde Pylgrimage of Perfection in 1526, so I think you are correct that the word survived into Early Modern English. We should mark it as obsolete. Dbfirs 09:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

One of those dictionary-only words, I suspect. I found one very dubious running-text citation in a book attempting to use as many unusual words as possible, but otherwise I can't see any evidence. Ƿidsiþ 08:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the biochemistry sense is used in w:Carbapenemase. It seems to include at least four types, which types may be subject to further division. IOW, the term reflects our current state of knowledge, but may not refer to a specific chemical whose composition and structure is well-established. As such I don't know in what sense it will really seem to be a term as more is understood. Perhaps users view it as SoP now. DCDuringTALK 13:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

From reading abstracts it appears that there is a gene which spreads among bacteria that enables them to create the K. pneumoniae carbapenase, so the notion that there is a strain the identity of which is stable enough to warrant treatment as a taxon seems unlikely. For example, {{w:NCBI}} does not have a taxon called Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase.

I feel that this is beyond my access to the scientific literature and probably my paygrade. If we do not have and cannot recruit a contributor with better access and knowledge, I would rather we deleted the pathology sense. The biochem sense would provide an interested user with a term to be used in further research. The pathology sense looks like it leads up a blind alley. DCDuringTALK 13:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

OTOH, this may be an important gateway to the phenomenon or rapidly spreading drug-resistance among pathogens that we would be remiss to neglect. DCDuringTALK 13:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's all very nice (or not, depending on one's taste), but I really request attesting quotations; these absent, I request that this be ultimately deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I know you are only interested in formal procedure, so I apologize for boring you. I don't know how to cite this properly in this case. I'd appreciate someone else trying or offering constructive advice or support. DCDuringTALK 17:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

RFV is not "formal procedure" in any pejorative sense; it is a process used to discover whether, as far as we know, a term or sense is attested. The material requested via RFV are usually attesting quotations, or at least links to them. You know that by now, having spent multiple years around here, so I not sure what to make of your above responses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed by 123snake45 (talk • contribs), with the comment:"There is no that word at Turkish. It has been prefabricated! It isn't Turkish." A couple of cites have just been added to the citations page for the entry, so it looks like a good time to assess those cites and see if there are any others.

The definition in the entry is "beach".

This fits the profile of the type of terms that our anonymous Turkish protologism purveyor targets: the word for beach one finds in dictionaries is plaj, which is an obvious borrowing of French plage- they specialize in trying to substitute terms manufactured from items in various Turkic languages for common Turkish words whose etymology isn't Turkish enough for their taste. The dictionary app on my computer has a verb çimmek (“to bathe (in a creek, stream, etc.)”), which could be the source for this, along with -er and -lik. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There are at least two citations from Google Books, so stop saying gibberish words and shut up. —This unsigned comment was added at 2001:a98:c060:80:7948:8701:2669:dbc5.

Your theory is wrong. There is already another word 'kumsal' for a beach as a Turkish origin word. --88.251.225.194 06:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In what way does that invalid his (Chuck Entz's) theory? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of that, though it literally means sandy. As for the previous comment: the issue isn't whether it's gibberish, but whether it's really Turkish. If someone were to try to translate beach into Turkish as çimerlik, there's a real possibility that they would either, at best, come across as not knowing Turkish very well, or, at worst, simply not be understood. A language consists of what people actually speak or have spoken in the past, not what someone thinks might be a good idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just my two cents. If a word, used in the given language, is attested, for CFI purposes, it's possible to include a word, which is quite rare and native speakers are not very familiar with it. It can be qualified as rare. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад) 23:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The rules we use are WT:CFI. RFV basically requires someone to cite a word for it not to be deleted. If someone is not offering cites, then there's basically no point in arguing against a word. If there is someone providing cites, then it's irrelevant what any other site says; the question becomes, among other things, if the cite is from an appropriate source and if the word is really used in the text. Words that are actually used will be kept, even if strongly disapproved of by whatever authorities there may be, though a note to that effect is appropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

123snake45 is behaving like this because he fabricated many words and those words were not accepted. After this he tries to delete other words that he sees on the forums which people discuss with him because of his absurd words. If you think that pan-Turkists or language purists use this kind of words it is irrevelant with if the citations are valid or not. A word can be used by the nationalists or the communists etc. A dictionary represents a word if that word really exists. I have just added the translations of the citations from Google Books so decide yourselves if they are valid or not. --88.251.163.12 09:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The citations look valid, so: RFV-passed. It gets no hits in this Turkish corpus, though, whereas plaj does get hits, so I've marked it as rare and added a synonyms section containing a link to plaj. - -sche(discuss) 21:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment about the citations: There were 6 citations:

I couldn't find one of them, the one of 1990: if anyone can post a link to the page scan, I'll take a look at that too.

The 2013 citation [24] is not at Google Books, but it is the website of a journal that's also printed; it shows the contents of that journal, so I'm going to assume that that's ok for CFI purposes.

The 1958 citation is on a non-durably archived website, here [25], but a certain someone (gee, who would that be? ;-) ) has copied that and posted it to Google Books. (!) Copying a forumpost and putting that on Google Books still makes it a forumpost; it's not a printed work as described in CFI.

The 1978 one is a mention (language purification guide of the Turkish Language Association).

The 2007 one has a different meaning. -- Curious (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand about the 1958 citation. Do you mean Google Groups? In any case, there is nothing about the form of any work in CFI; it's about whether it's durably archived. Forum posts, like personal letters and diaries, are perfectly eligible if they are durably archived (like the use of the diary of Samuel Pepys on camlet and cittern).--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think they meant Google Books. The mere fact of appearing on Google Books or Google Groups doesn't make something durably archived. We accept Google Books cites because we presume that they're just digital copies ofprinted works that are also durably archived elsewhere. We accept Usenet cites from Google Groups, not because they're on Google Groups, but because they're on Usenet, which is copied all over the place and impossible to really delete. If non-durably-archived material can be submitted to Google Books, its occurrence on Google Books doesn't, by itself, make it durably-archived- a copyright owner can have it removed. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything on Google Books. Looking and thinking about it again, it makes no sense; how can a 1958 citation be a forum post?!? That page seems to have the entire (almost certainly illegal) copy of a book Yılanların Öcü by Fakir Baykurt, which is indeed on Google Books in several editions, though I can't get Google Books to bring up anything that looks like that citation. Yılanların Öcü is durably archived; Worldcat lists 45 libraries as holding copies, and I'm guess there would be a lot more if Turkish libraries were regularly listed by Worldcat (no Turkish libraries are in that 45). The question is if the cite accurately quotes the book and uses the word in that sense, not whether it's durably archived.

It's easy to post a message on Usenet, and that satisfies CFI. It's conceivably and easily abusable, and obviates worrying about people adding non-durably-archived stuff to Google Books to generate a cite for Wiktionary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the discussion about 1958, Fakir Baykurt quotation, here is a dubious looking entry in Google books, discovered via google:"Şehrin peştemal kuşanmış". Nonetheless, the 1958 Fakir Baykurt quotation is not independent of the 1998, Fakir Baykurt quotation per having the same author (WT:CFI#Independent)), so let's just leave it out of discussion.

Three suitable attesting quotations seem to be there in Citations:çimerlik: 1998, Fakir Baykurt; 2013, Reşad Mecid; 1990, Aziz Nesin. User:Curious, can you see the scan of the 1990, Aziz Nesin quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe in ingredients lists where they have "aqua" for water. I dont know if that's meant to make it easier for non-English speakers to understand or if it's some legal thing that it's not healthy enough if it doesn't give the chemical formula of water. Soap (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. This is an example how 123snake45 says "This isn't Turkish! It is prefabricated!" without any prior research. If he looked up Turkish Language Association's Up-to-date Turkish Dictionary, he could probably see this word there. --2001:A98:C060:80:3C5D:D53C:F96D:7B9A 07:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I did look today and it isn't writing at mean "to drive". So it isn't "drive" it is "dehlemek". "Haydamak" comes from "hayda" and "hayda" is mean "haydi". So, it uses for get move the animal(s); a kind of hurry up. --123snake45 (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You said it without any prior research. Because you only want to spread the words which you fabricated. If you don't know a word, you think that word was fabricated by another one and you can not stand this. --2001:A98:C060:80:3C5D:D53C:F96D:7B9A 09:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The words "sınalgı, haydavcı, türküm" etc. are not prefabricated words. They are loan words from other Turkic languages. You can not stand these words because this kind of words prevent you to spread your own fabricated words. Öndürücü is some people's surname in Turkey, and you may find all these words in other dictionaries. Anyway, there are citations from Google Books so stop saying irrelevant things here. --2001:A98:C060:80:3C5D:D53C:F96D:7B9A 11:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

We need another Turkish speaker to sort this out. Assuming the citations at Citations:haydamak are valid (as they appear to be) we need someone to tell us what they mean. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unquestionably, the etymon of the Ukr. hajdamaka is Tkc. haydamak ‘treiben’; as it displays the initial h-, it was visibly the Ott. form. Morphologically the word is a suffixed form: hayda- + -mak (a suffix building in Turkish a grammatical category similar to the Indo-European infinitive form) ‘to drive, drive away; driving, driving away’. The verb (h)ayda- seems to be a derivative from the onomatopoeic stem hayda ‘come on! (to spur someone on)’. Thus the original meaning of haydamak was ‘to shout hayda’ and developed into ‘to shout hayda driving someone / something away’. In Ott. or CTat., however, this verb could have gained another meaning of ‘to shout hayda while chasing after / pursuing someone or something’ and finally ‘to chase, to pursue’. (Michał Németh, Remarks on the etymology of Hung. hajdú ‘herdsman’ and Tkc. haydamak ‘brigand’ , STUDIA TURCOLOGICA CRACOVIENSIA, · 10 (2005). (This source is available on Google Books) --2001:A98:C060:80:E40C:3A70:A48A:99C2 12:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That word is lie of a group. --123snake45 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Watch your mouth, we know about your lies. It is zir ü zeber in Ottoman Turkish. This may be a changed form of that word (see Hungarian zűrzavar) but since there is no citations from Google Books this word may be deleted. --2001:A98:C060:80:9C10:38EF:8648:DCCF 09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Can this be attested to mean "pubic hair"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English has an entry - "noun. the pubic hair that can be seen outside the confines of a girl's bikini or underwear" UK - citing Chris E. Lewis The Dictionary of Playground Slang, 2003. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not what counts as a citation for WT:ATTEST, though it does obviously suggest that the term is real. Those are two mentions, not uses. DCDuringTALK 18:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Any quotations attesting this to mean coward? Was in Wikisaurus, present in at least one online thesaurus for "coward". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but offhand sounds quite dated. Evokes a sort of 'Classic Westerns' kinda feel, like something you'd hear in old movies made in the 1960's (but set in the 1860-1890's), or Gunsmoke. Leasnam (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Aside from hearing it said by other children in the US in the 60s, there's this, this, and this. There's also this and this, but they're hyphenated. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This has one quotation, but the quotation is not actually in English, so it doesn't attest this term for English. It also failed RFV before. —CodeCat 19:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It even uses the same quote that Ruakh said in the course of the rvf was probably Middle Scots. I'm sure it's a case of forgetting that what the OED considers Scottish dialects, we consider the Scots language. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A Luciferwildcat entry tagged for speedy deletion by User:Peter Bowman as not existing in the Spanish language. I haven't had time this morning to check thoroughly, so I brought it here. Given LW's track record, I won't be surprised if this fails. Also included:

Actually, the gramatically correct form would be atravesamiento (first conjugation ending -ar + suffix -miento = -amiento). Although not noted in the RAE dictionary, there are some hits in CORPES and CREA and the term (spelled with an a) seems to be used in Latin America. Peter Bowman (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion by User:Peter Bowman, so I brought it here, just to be fair. This one looks like it's attested, but it would be useful to know whether it's a misspelling or an alternative form (the authoritative RAE dictionary online only recognizes cervecería). Chuck Entz (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be real but obsolete. Perhaps archaic would be a better tag because it seems to appear in at least one place name (hence the hits in running English texts). Renard Migrant (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Google hits I get seem to be chiefly in the names of pubs. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It would probably help to have two more clearly distinct senses of socialism. There is the Marxist sense, which is The Government Owns Everything For Your Own Good, Comrade, which is the source of the American political boo-word ("Obamacare is creeping socialism!!")

The other is the softer understanding of a general ethos of helping your neighbours and them helping you: working for a generally social benefit. So a capital-S Socialist Anarchist is a contradiction in terms: someone who wants to pull down government in order to ... build an overarching all-controlling government. The soft sense, on the other hand, is someone who wants to bring down government in the expectation that people will naturally work together for communal benefit without a government getting in the way. (This tends to go with a belief that government tends to be captured by oligarchy sooner or later, so that corporate-controlled government is actively working against the common good as seen from street-level). As opposed to the "every man for themselves" anarchist; such as the Randian, for whom everyone should be selfish and greedy and unrestrained by the needs of those around them, and that this is a good thing; or the caricature anarchist who just wants to watch stuff burn.

Good Hell, I hope that you are trolling. If not, then I am sad to say that you people are bloody ignorant. Socialists, communists, and anarchists (which I consider synonymous) seek the elimination of the state, not the strengthening of it. Look it up. Most anarchists therefore consider ‘anarcho‐socialism’ a pleonasm, in contrast to anarcho-capitalism, which is definitely oxymoronic because capitalism requires the state so that capitalism can sustain itself. The concept of ‘state‐socialism’ was a nonsense concept fabricated by Vladimir Lenin to attract the workers to his movement, and Leninism and its successor ideologies have very little to do with Marxism. Most people have no clue what socialism, communism, or anarchism are. Influential people obfuscated the concept because it could be very dangerous to their power. --Romanophile (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you are so firmly convinced that Socialism as exemplified in the USSR doesn't mean what the Soviets thought it meant. (Or that it can't hold two, even potentially contradictory, meanings depending on context.) And that Socialism means exactly the same thing as Communism... in all possible contexts, I assume? Also that Anarchism means only what you think it means, and that there are not such things as anarchists who desire the loss of government so that they can as individuals do and take whatever they want, or people who may be unclear on the inherent contradictions between capitalism per se and anarchism per se, but still identify as "anarcho-capitalists". Are there any other political terms you think everyone except you gets wrong? --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 04:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is, anarcho‐socialism is not oxymoronic, and your idea of ‘Marxist socialism’ is obviously tosh. Even if you think that it’s still a valid meaning, it can’t possibly be the only meaning. Also ‘…everyone except you…’, that’s wrong, too. [29] --Romanophile (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said it was the only meaning. It would seem to be you having the problem with the concept of polysemy. The World Socialist Movement doesn't get to define what the word is and isn't allowed to mean either. (I am sympathetic to socialism myself, but the "About Us" page of the World Socialism Movement has as much of a monopoly on the word "socialism" as does the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That is: none.) --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 05:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The sense of "libertarian" nominated for RFV is "An anarchist, typically with socialist implications." Please let us have attesting quotations, and, they absent, let us eventually fail this RFV. I am suspicious of the sense, since dictionaries don't have it. google books:"libertarian", google groups:"libertarian", libertarian at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added a couple which clearly put libertarians, anarchists and socialists into the same semiotic pot, and a couple more which I'll add here rather than there, because they are not the noun, but used adjectivally:

He highlighted libertarian traditions of socialism and linked them to anarchism in the British context.

2012 David Goodway, Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward p.15

The Labour Emancipation League had been founded in the East End in 1882 and, while never calling itself anarchist, was always libertarian socialist and became anti-parliamentarian, as expressed in Joseph Lane's notable An Anti-Statist, Communist Manifesto of 1887.

The three quotations present in the entry do not attested the sense, IMHO. I mean 1973 Eugene Lunn, 2009 Peter Marshall and 2012 Wilbur R. Miller. Consider the third one: "While anarchism and socialist libertarians have a rich history of revolutionary thinkers ...": how do you infer that "anarchism" and "socialist libertarians" are terms intended to mean the same in the sentence? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I think they rather do. They are all used in the context of Anarchist/Socialist theory, and are contrasting specific subtypes of that ideology. The last reference, the one you quote, is also contrasting socialist libertarians against right-libertarians. The preceding sentence reads "Socialist libertarianism sounds like anarchy, and for good reason; in fact anarchists began using the term libertarian in the mid-1800s, far before the right-wing usage in the United States that began in the 1950s."[30] Maybe that would have been a better quote? But it explicitly draws out socialism, anarchism, and libertarianism as different strands of the same basic ideology. The 2009 quote also explicitly contrasts socialist libertarianism against authoritarian socialism, which contrast Seth seemed to have such difficulty with in the conversation above. --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 20:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also: "how do you infer that "anarchism" and "socialist libertarians" are terms intended to mean the same in the sentence?"

Semantics. If they were different movements, it would say that "... anarchism and socialist libertarians have rich histories ...". As it gives the two terms a singular history of revolutionary thinkers, it follows that they are different aspects of the same thing, QED. --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 21:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What about this: "The Asian civilizations of India, China, Korea, and Japan each have a rich history of design development extending back for thousands of years", boldface mine. Looks like a refutation of your argument to me. To find more sentences like that, check google books:"have a rich history". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You yourself bolded the difference. Each: "The phrase beginning with each identifies a set of items wherein the words following each identify the individual elements by their shared characteristics. The phrase is grammatically singular in number, so if the phrase is the subject of a sentence, its verb is conjugated into a third-person singular form."

With the "each" the singular subject "a rich history" applies to each individual civilisation of India, China, Korea and Japan. Without it, "The Asian civilizations of India, China, Korea, and Japan have a rich history" implies a singular shared history between them as a group. --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 22:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You must be kidding me by now. There is "Shreveport and Bossier City have a rich history [...]"; find other quotations at google books:"have a rich history". Your argument, which by the way was syntactic rather than semantic, is flawed. In general, a phrase of the form "X and Y have a rich history" does not suggest X and Y to be synonyms. As for "have rich histories", few people write that even when the subject is plural: have a rich history, have rich histories at Google Ngram Viewer. When the subject is singular, it is google books:"has a rich history", with "has" rather than "have". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh for Deity's sake: the references are giving the history of anarchists and socialists and calling them libertarians, and somehow you can't extract any meaning from that? Do you think that someone is talking about A and B having a history of C because there isn't a semantic connection between them? If that is the case, please describe the sort of source and/or wording which could possibly convince you.

Moreover, that more people fail to observe the singular verb with multiple subjects and 'each' doesn't stop it working in that way. Arguably the bit about verb conjugation in the Usage Notes of "each" is not accurate, certainly not for "has". I still maintain that "A and B have a rich history" implies a shared history between them; where the technically correct "A and B each has a rich history" and the more common in use "A and B each have a rich history" both imply separate and distinct histories. --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 12:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The second etymology, "excrescence on the trunk of a tree usually covering a knot", has just been added by an anon. All I could find in a cursory search is bole (with an e) as another word for tree trunk. Since the IP also added a Maori translation, maybe this sense of bol is specific to New Zealand? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm think anon meant burl, which could easily be pronounced "bol", and may have such a pronunciation-derived spelling somewhere, though I haven't found it yet. DCDuringTALK 13:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This failed RFV before; now there are quotations in the entry, which I have copied to Citations:female penis. The quotations are inadequate, IMHO. First, the quotation "The correct anatomical term to describe [...] is the female penis." is a mention; any quotation of the form "The correct term for X is Y" is a mention of Y, while it is use of X. The second quotation actually uses the term "miniature female penis" to refer to clitoris, not "female penis"; it becomes apparent if you try to substitude, and get "miniature clitoris", which was not intended; in any case, it is a one-off metaphor and not the use of the term "female penis" to refer to clitoris before clitoris was introduced to the context. As for the third quotation, substitution again clarifies what is going on: In "The female penis is something that physically disrupts the idea that men and women have sex because they were built to fit together", this is really an abbreviation of The [idea of clitoris being a] female penis ..."; substitution yields nonsense: "The clitoris is something that physically disrupts the idea that men and women have sex because they were built to fit together". I motion to speedy delete as unattested term that failed RFV before until the author adds acceptable quotations to Citations:female penis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added two more cites; not sure how acceptable they are but they do allude to the clitoris. Zeggazo (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As for "I stroked each side of her labia majora [...] before homing back on what had, by now, swollen to become her female penis with it's familiar Germanic helmet—albeit in miniature—which I now rolled around between my thumb and fore-finger": That is a one-off metaphor not using "female penis" to refer to clitoris; the sentence indicates that only after it has swollen has the clitoris become "her female penis", immediately continuing the metaphor with "familiar Germanic helmet", which does not attest "Germanic helmet" to refer to a part of clitoris. Also notice the word "become"; if "female penis" would mean clitoris, the sentence would suggest that clitoris has become clitoris, a nonsense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: The act of welcoming a person/family to their newly purchased or newly rented home.

Not found in Onelook. The only support which I could find for this sense is this comment in the Wikipedia article for Housewarming party: "In some communities, neighbors may bring the housewarming party to the new residents to welcome them." --Hekaheka (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The with-space spelling is certainly less common. housewarming at OneLook Dictionary Search and house-warming at OneLook Dictionary Search find just few lemmings. This is certainly attestable. DCDuringTALK 23:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the spelling, but the sense. The first sense is "party to celebrate moving into a new home", which I think is the usual one. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd not be surprised that it existed. I take it that any of the three spelling could provide the attestation, not just the least common one, which we call the lemma for some reason. DCDuringTALK 01:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand the problem with the entry. We should not have an adjective section, as the term does not meet tests for adjectivity such as comparability/gradability or predicate use, nor does it have any distinct meaning when used attributively. The challenged noun sense is the original sense of housewarming, usually used attributively and usually uncountable when a nominal. This is the sense used in housewarming party and housewarming gift. The "party" sense is a countable sense derived from the first, when housewarming came to take formal shape as a party.

If my view is correct, the adjective section should be RfVed to confirm that it does not meet the tests and the challenged sense should have a label (usually used attributively) and should appear before the "party sense". DCDuringTALK 01:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Or not. A "feast/merrymaking" sense goes back at least to Samuel Johnson. So housewarming party is a pleonasm. The adjective sense should still be RfVed IMO. DCDuringTALK 02:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Etymonline says 1570. It looks to me like that's the original sense, which was extended metaphorically to mean a welcome, and the metaphorical sense is what's used attributively. The question is where along the way (if anywhere) has there been a split into separate senses or words? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Can one now have a housewarming without a party, a feast, or merry-making? I think so. Certainly one can give a housewarming gift without there being festivities. That Cambridge has housewarming (party) as an entry, even though it should be a pleonasm, suggests to me that housewarming has the challenged sense. Oxford has a definition "A party celebrating a move to a new home" and gives as examples sentences with "housewarming party", ie, its definition is not substitutable into the very usage examples it provides. DCDuringTALK 03:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this noun sense is essentially the same as the first noun sense, where party should be interpreted broadly to include small social gatherings. Adjective should get terminated with extreme prejudice. Make housewarming the main form per DCDuring. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There are purported cites in the entry, but each needs to be reviewed to determine whether it is "durably archived" and to be formatted to allow for broad participation in any decisions about whether this merits "hot word" status before it would otherwise be included (after a year has passed), assuming the validity of the cites. DCDuringTALK 13:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I've formatted the citations from print journals. All are from articles reporting on the same piece of research. While I'd say we should keep this for now, the important part in a year will be seeing if other research groups use the word in scientific papers (or if the characters in CSI start profiling victim's thanatomicrobiomes...) Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that they are in print editions? In the past, I've assumed that online content provided by a title that was also in print was in print/durably archived. I no longer think such an assumption is justified, but I don't know how to make a determination one way or the other. DCDuringTALK 06:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The journal citation: definitely. The New Scientist citation: definitely (it says "This article appeared in print" at the bottom. The Forensics Magazine citation: almost definitely (it's tagged with a reference to the issue it appeared in). In general though, I don't think having an even more restrictive criterion for web citations is really going to improve the quality or reliability of Wiktionary, since we're just going to lose whole swathes of high-quality sources of citations for relatively little gain. If nothing else, it's fair to assume that any reasonably well-trafficked website will be put in the Internet Archive and copied by a hundred spam mirrors. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a matter for WT:BP and even a VOTE. It might be time to revisit the question. DCDuringTALK 12:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, we've never made any effort to define 'durably archived'. It wouldn't be revisiting the issue of what durably archived means, it would be a start on the matter. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant: We have what is more useful than a verbal definition: an operational one: We accept as sources any print work that would be found in a library, any print journal or newspaper, any Usenet group. Folks have made arguments for other things but haven't convinced very many people. DCDuringTALK 18:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello... does this work? . I am the author of the word "thanatomicrobiome". I created the original web page... however someone keeps changing it... Can we please leave the references as is...?

The other person keeps adding news paper articles... does the rag newspaper "Montgomery Advertiser" count as a real publication? I do not think so.. but I have NOT deleted it. Can we please discuss? panoble@washington.edu Thanks Peter

Here they are:

===References===

[31] Peter A. Noble, A NSF proposal I wrote: "Life after death: The role and composition of the thanatomicrobiome in the decomposition of mammalian organs", October, 2013.

The Montgomery Advertiser is the largest daily newspaper in Alabama and it's won three Pulitzer Prizes, so it definitely counts as a real publication, though here at Wiktionary all that matters to us is that it's durably archived (a term which we haven't formally defined but roughly means you could go to a library and find the publication in question—in other words, we prefer print publications like books, magazines, and newspapers to websites). As for other people changing the entry you started, one of the most basic rules for participating in a wiki like Wiktionary is accepting that other people will edit pages that you start. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The added citations do not include quoted text from the article (evidencing use of the word), so they need checking and filling out. The user adding them has just been putting summaries in his/her own words. Equinox◑ 17:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the putative quotations from the entry in the mainspace; no more elegant solution comes to mind. It was only when I read your comment that I realized that these were not really quotations. The items are still in the page history, so the information is not lost, and he who wants to provide proper quotations should have a reasonable easy time doing so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The first two citations on the citations page ("Distinctive thanatomicrobiome", "their thanatomicrobiome") are durable uses, AFAICT, but both are from August 2014. I reckon the thing to do is let this sit in hot-word limbo until late 2015 and then look for current uses. - -sche(discuss) 21:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, got confused. I thought that was a comment on kodak.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

RFV passed: some quotations at Citations:kol çekmek. I cannot judge their quality or fitness, but they do seem to be in Turkish, of the challenged term, and from permanently recorded media. Until someone challenges these quotations, this is a pass. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The standard word that everybody uses for "to sign" is imzalamak (or imza atmak). Two of the citations are ok. Of the remaining 4 "citations", 1 is non-durably archived, and 3 are dictionary entries (Ottoman Turkish (2x), regional colloquial Turkish (1x)). If a third citation can be found, the entry can be kept, but needs to be tagged with "rare" (and possibly also with "archaic"?). -- Curious (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

RFV passed 2: the entry was tagged as rare and has "imzalamak" entered as a synonym; it now has additional quotations from Google books at Citations:kol çekmek. Above, native Turkish speaker User:Curious confirms at least two of the quotations. I have ranked the dictionary entry "imzalamak: kol çekmek, kol koymak" as a use, not mention, since the discussed term is in the definition rather than being the term defined, and thus is used to convey meaning. I remind the reader that the English Wiktionary is a descriptivist dictionary, describing language usage as it can actually be found in sources used as evidence, even rare usage, using WT:ATTEST as criteria. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I read a fuck of a lot of books and this entry is a strange mystery to me. What does it mean? Equinox◑ 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Read this to see an explanation using real English sentences that actually mean things. The term looks citeable, but the definition given is only decipherable if you already know what it means and read between the lines. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I overlooked the second definition, which doesn't seem to mean anything at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"Creating patterns that enable adaptive capacity across a system" sounds more like a tortured definition of fault-tolerant network design than anything to do with leadership. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's very difficult to understand. If it's an exchange, what sort of exchange? In the sense of a discussion, or the sense of a swap? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Only in the Smurfs universe? Needs to meet WT:FICTION. Equinox◑ 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added some External links to meet the criteria of attestation. The smurfberry seen as a berry is, without any doubt, part of a fictional universe. The game curreny, however, isn't fiction at all. It was hard reality and quite a shock for a number of parents a couple of years ago.--93.193.8.229 19:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The links only provide support for the game currency. The fictional sense needs cites that do not explicitly refer to the fictional universe: that's what we mean when we say it has "entered the language". See, for example, kryptonite. Choor monster (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The usual interpretation is that the citations need to be on the page or the citations page, and they aren't. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

For 93.193.8.229 'fictional universe' refers to the content not the medium! A book made of paper, the paper isn't fictional but the information contained in the page may well be! Renard Migrant (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

To clarify. Citations don't actually have to be anywhere, unless challenged. There are only 2 kryptonite cites, for example, but since everybody knows it has entered the language, nobody is challenging it for the third to make it official. Referring to links is common during discussion, helping others judge the challenged term. At the moment, smurfberry the currency seems secure, but the fictional berry remains unsupported. Choor monster (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: the sole adjective sense 'unexpected'. Is this an adjectival at all? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of phrases that take the form "a surprise NOUN". Purplebackpack89 18:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Invalid argument: same goes for "tractor" (tractor parts, tractor driver) but that's not an adjective. "Surprise" fails many of the typical tests for adjectivity: you can't have "more/most/very/somewhat surprise"; you can say "surprise party" but not "the party was surprise"; and so on. Equinox◑ 18:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's an attributive use of the noun, not an adjective. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is rfv (though I'm not sure why it isn't at rfd), so it's all about usage, not arguments. At any rate, the usage mentioned doesn't establish adjectivity for the reasons mentioned. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make them adjectives: you don't say "that inspection was more surprise than the last one", you say, "that inspection was more of a surprise than the last one. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: It is at RfV because RfD tends to be a fact-free zone and facts could in principle show surprise to behave like a true adjective. We actually have criteria for "true adjective" use, unlike the situation for multi-word entries. The burden of proof is on those with insight into some type of true adjective use to demonstrate such use. The longer minimum time period before removal of items is useful to give advocates more of a chance. There is a substantial bias toward deleting these because linguistically naive contributors are inclined to take attributive use of a noun as an indication that the noun is also an adjective. A weakness of the process is that we rarely add examples of the noun in attributive use as usage examples for the noun definitions. DCDuringTALK 18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure it is a good idea to single out one particular sense that arises in attributive use, as the definition "unexpected" in this case? For example, in the surprise element (aka the element of surprise) the element is not unexpected, it is a desired and planned-for feeling of surprise, which may indeed be expected, as in those attending a horror movie. DCDuringTALK 19:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It may be planned and expected in some way (as in expect the unexpected), but there's something unexpected about it for the viewer, otherwise it wouldn't provoke the "feeling of surprise". Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Attestation is the key. Nouns can't be qualified by adverbs such as "very surprise" "more surprise" "the most surprise". I wasn't the tagger it was tagged by Hamaryns in December 2013. Not really relevant because we go on the merits of the entry, not who tagged it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to this as a separate noun. The usual term for a Sami person seems to be sápmelaš, while sámi is only the genitive form of Sápmi (“Lapland”). —CodeCat 15:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

An additional note: Judging from w:se:Sámit, it seems that the plural sámit is used to refer to the Sami collectively, as a people. But I haven't seen it used in the singular with this meaning so far. —CodeCat 15:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sámi is unambiguously the accusative-genitive of Sápmi. This word in general is cited to have also the sense "a Sámi person" e.g. at the Neahttadigisánit dictionary, so I suspect citations for that can be found. I suspect someone has been confused with the attributive use of the noun though in adding a lemma for the inflected form. --Tropylium (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We are now talking of sámi with minuscule "s". According to Finnish wiktionary (Northern Sami Wiktionary is still in incubator stage) and our entry Sami, sámi is an adjective, which of course does not necessarily exclude other senses. I changed the entry accordingly. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not really any better, I'm afraid. The -m- in "sámi" is a weak-grade consonant, so it doesn't normally appear in the nominative form (gradation in Northern Sami is like Finnish, but all the consonants gradate), while it does appear in the genitive. So I think that Sápmi and Sámi relate to each other in the same way as Finnish Suomi and Suomen (and quite likely have the same origin too, but that's another matter). The difference is that in Northern Sami, the lowercase version also refers to the people, but only in plural. Maybe the genitive is an exception to that, and this is simply how Northern Sami handles plurale tantum nouns (i.e. no singular forms but there is still a genitive). —CodeCat 19:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's true that sámi is the genitive form of sápmi, but that does not automatically make sámi invalid as a word. Flipping through the scarce information available of Sami language in the internet I found several occasions in which sámi is defined as an adjective. I would assume that the genitive has acquired a new meaning at some point of the development of the language. I'm not a Sami expert but I'm quite certain that you aren't one either. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It does exist as a word, but I think people are misinterpreting it as a separate lemma. This is not surprising given that many people interested in Sami languages and culture would be speakers of other languages which don't have such things as case systems. If an English speaker saw "suomen kieli" and knew that it meant "Finnish language" then they might be tempted to think that "suomen" is an adjective meaning "Finnish". I suspect something like that may be going on here.

My own interpretation is that sámit is a plurale tantum referring to Sami people, but its singular genitive form is used attributively. I think User:Tropylium knows more about this than anyone else, so his views would be welcome. —CodeCat 15:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was saying: sámi is, in the cited sense, definitely not a lemma. Northern Sami has both attributive and predicative forms of adjectives, the latter are taken as the lemma, and this is an attributive.

It'd still take further verification to determine if the adjectival use actually checks out though. I hope our small number of Category:User se-2 people might have better knowledge of this yet. --Tropylium (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean with "In the cited sense not a lemma"? The article was originally written of sámi as if it were a noun. However, based on what I've read, it seemed that it would be an adjective and I have changed the entry accordingly. Are you saying it's not an adjective either? --Hekaheka (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be mixing together far too many different questions by now. Let's try to be explicit about what we are discussing.

Semantics.

Sápmi, uppercase, exists in at least one sense: 1. "the land of the Sami people" (proper noun) (NB: not "Lapland", which covers also traditional Finnish and Swedish territories!)

The word IPA(key): /saːpmi/ is moreover used also in two other senses: 2. "Sami" (adjective); 3. "a Sami person" (common noun).

Capitalization.

I am still not able to take a definite stance on if the two latter senses should be uppercase or lowercase. I have by now checked a couple other dictionaries, which all seem to only report the capitalized Sápmi (acc. Sámi); I have also checked some grammars, which seem to at least use the word in these senses as the lowercase sápmi (acc. sámi). Probably we should dig into some Sami media for citations.

Another question I do not know the answer to is if there is any semantic difference depending on the capitalization.

If it turns out that lowercase sápmi "a Sami person" is valid, then probably sámit "Sami people" needs to be treated as simply its plural, and not a separate plurale tantum (cf. e.g. Brits, Finns).

The form ‹sámi› is definitely not a lemma, but merely an inflected form of ‹sápmi›.

Am I being clear enough yet?

(I think we went off the rails already at the beginning — I interpreted CodeCat as asking whether the accusative deserves an entry as a separate lemma, while I now think she was asking if the meaning "a Sami person" is correct; and then Hekaheka introduced the question of capitalization.) --Tropylium (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I added this sense, but I wonder if it's "dictionary only" because I can't find actual usages, so I'm inclined to delete it unless someone else can verify that the word is actually used with this meaning. Dbfirs 08:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

One citation:

The circus band was elevated from strong-lipped windjamming to artistic renditions of classical overtures and standard selections

However, it looks like in the musical sense, it's usually written hyphenated. It also specifically seems to mean "playing a wind instrument badly" (possibly, it even refers to a specific fault that wind players make):

When he plays you hear no whistling and wind-jamming, none of the little mannerisms that ordinarily make flute-playing a trifle unpleasant.

Where Buescher True-Tone Instruments predominated there was a noticeable absence of that blatant wind-jamming that often makes the brasses sound a trifle unpleasant when amateurs play

This includes two French horns - played by troupers who are good - but the rest are all melophone or rain-catchers (bell ups) of the old style, and when they put on a wind-jamming contest you can bet the barking irons are there.

Rfv-sense: "to become farther from another traveling the same course."

I think this is included in the sense of "make progress; obtain advantage", but there may be something distinct that I don't see. DCDuringTALK 13:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it is meant to be more literal, but I find it very confusing. If you are behind someone then gaining ground would mean getting closer, not further away. 86.179.115.46 03:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are correct in being confused. I think the challenged definition would apply to the leader, though not the follower in a competition. DCDuringTALK 08:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Dutch for rigid. An anon removed it with the edit summary “That's wrong.” — Ungoliant(falai) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think difficult, tight, stiff, rough , but better to wait for a native speaker...those can be synonymous with "rigid" Leasnam (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The primary meaning is still "not smooth, not flowing/sliding freely" but this can be extended to meaning rigid in the sense of "difficult to move". It doesn't mean rigid in the meaning "not bendable". At least not literally; perhaps when referring to a person's willingness to cooperate, stroef and star may be close to synonyms (I'm not sure though). —CodeCat 23:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I was able to find very few uses of this in running English text ([43], [44], [45], [46]) all italicise the term, and none supports the first definition. — Ungoliant(falai) 15:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Tons of Google books hits, but when you click through, almost all of them are actually scannos of "post-disco" (and lots of them are actually from the same book of supposedly copyrighted Wikipedia-rips reuploaded hundreds of times to flood Amazon). I can only find one that's actually "postdisco": "Tina Turner, a veteran soul performer who had long fronted the band led by her one-time husband, the R & B and rock pioneer Ike Turner, refashioned herself into a postdisco diva" Are there any others? Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are a fair few unhyphenated occurrences in Google Books. Added two to the adjective, but they might apply to the noun too/instead. May look harder later. Equinox◑ 13:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't seem to find a source, and it may be an error on my part, though there are a number of examples of it that come up if you google the phrase (and I don't mean just Wiktionary and mirrors thereof). If I've erred, feel free to remove the entry of course. I won't argue with you. embryomystic (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If you found examples, what is your question? I checked, and it showed up on The Forward, and it's an entry in [47]. The non-Hebrew spelling reflects the Yiddish pronunciation. I was privileged to hear a friend last month, a week before his hasanah, do the complete song quoted in fragments at The Forward. And yes, his fluent-from-birth Yiddish pronunciations were distinctly non-Hebrew. Here are links to another song, along with this Yiddish spelling: [48] and [49]. The latter is a blog, but you can see it's quoting from a recording. Choor monster (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked it up in about 6 or 7 dictionaries, including Yiddish-Hebrew, Yiddish-Russian, Yiddish-German. Also, I looked up Chaim Grade Di Agune, since it has a big Simchat Torah scene. All of them had the Hebrew spelling exclusively. Choor monster (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yiddish dictionaries all copy each other, so it could be a "dictionary-only" spelling. Where did you look up Di Agune? Also, what do you mean by the "Hebrew spelling"? Both spellings are used in Hebrew, but the one with the extra yud is by far less common. --WikiTiki89 00:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I've only seen it without the yud, so I assume that is the Hebrew spelling, and the with-yud version, based on this discussion was, I presumed, a Yiddish-only spelling. As I said, the with-yud version was not in the dictionaries, and not in Grade's novel. I looked up Di Agune, like all the dictionaries (other than the linked-to online dictionary), in a library. Choor monster (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I misunderstood you. I have two Yiddish dictionaries, both of which are fairly prescriptive and spell it with the yud in the lemma, but give שׂמחה as an alternative form of שׂימחה. So I was referring to the with-yud spelling (the one nominated here) as the potentially dictionary-only spelling. --WikiTiki89 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I will point out that the library had four editions of Harkavy; I only checked the most recent. I will probably look again later this week. Choor monster (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The given synonym, ionad-gnìomhachais, is clearly in use: a Google search turns up various Scottish tourist brochures, BBC news articles, etc. But, unhelpfully, there is nothing in Google Books or Usenet. I suppose if someone can find a physical book that contains a mention of either of these terms, that will be helpful (as Scottish Gaelic is LDL). This, that and the other (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

RFV the adjectival senses: "Of or relating to the US Bill of Rights" and "Of or relating to free speech in general". The second one should be relatively easy to do, but I doubt the first one is attestable at all. — Keφr 08:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Relating not just to the First Amendment? I'd like to see both attested and as true adjectives in both senses, or even "of or relating to the First Amendment" as a true adjective. DCDuringTALK 11:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have seen "First Amendment" used in contexts where there is no government involved at all, which means it cannot refer to the literal sense ("Congress shall make no law…"). Not that I like this usage, but I think it plausible that it can be demonstrated.

Are you some kind of Constitutional literalist? I suppose you don't believe in a Constitutional right to privacy either. But seriously, […] .

I think we can find use of the noun applied to free speech of all kinds, even in a non-governmental context (eg, school or university rules, non-governmental public meetings, child-parent relationships), ie, there is a missing sense of the noun. If there is such use, then that also covers attributive use in that sense. But I'm more skeptical about First Amendment referring to the entire Bill of Rights, either as a noun or an adjective.

Predicate use is usually the most abundant true-adjective use, though it can be a bit tedious to sift through the raw hits to find the good ones.

WordNet supports the more general 'free expression/free speech' sense of the term with this definition: "an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right of free expression; includes freedom of assembly and freedom of the press and freedom of religion and freedom of speech;" DCDuringTALK 13:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the de facto adjective test for English is gradable use, or non-gradable use where it cannot be a noun as no such noun exists. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Absence of gradability is not sufficient evidence that something is not an adjective. A sufficiently distinguished sense of the word when used attributively is sufficient to show something is an adjective. Use as predicate is less definitive because some uses as predicate of a word that is at least sometimes a noun don't feel (God help me!) like adjective use. DCDuringTALK 18:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, can you think of an example of a predicative use of a word that doesn't feel like an adjective? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

In "The sidewalk is cement", cement doesn't 'feel' much like an adjective to me, but I'd be interested in how others 'feel' it. DCDuringTALK 23:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That looks to me like a predicate non-count noun, same as that blue thing is water or this food is fish. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This adjective represent two of the six ever edits by 88.198.175.78 (talk). Look at the other three in the main namespace. I'm sure we're wasting our time here and yet, due process. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

2nd sense: "A common expression whose words cannot be replaced by synonymous words without compromising the meaning. " --- Isn't this the definition of "idiom" and actually a special case of the previous definition "A common expression whose wording is not subject to variation"? --Hekaheka (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dictionaries that define set phrase often have idiom as the definition or as a synonym. DCDuringTALK 14:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If we accept that "set phrase" and "idiom" are synonyms, we still need to judge how many definitions we need. The Onelook dictionaries which list "set phrase" use the following wordings:

Oxford: "An unvarying phrase having a specific meaning, such as “raining cats and dogs,” or being the only context in which a word appears, e.g., “aback” in “take aback.”"

Vocabulary.com, Rhymezone, Free Dictionary and Look WAY up: "An expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up."

None of them has two definitions. I'm not convinced we should either. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If "idiom" is an exact definition of one way people use the term and others use it to mean a particular type of idiom, to wit, "an idiom which allows no substitution of synonyms or insertion of modifiers" and both are attestable, how can we exclude one? Very few people would accept the second as a definition of idiom.

The Gang of Four above are using the WordNet definition, which is exactly the same as one of the WordNet definitions for idiom and indeed for any in the synset consisting of idiom, idiomatic expression, phrasal idiom, set phrase, phrase.

The Oxford definition is more like the narrower definition, but "unvarying phrase" abstracts from inflection and pluralization, one or both of which may be possible, eg, rain can inflect in rain cats and dogs but neither cat not dog can be in the singular. I didn't find WP much help. DCDuringTALK 23:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be essentially the same as definition #1, which is undisputed. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Part of what adds to the confusion are the usage notes, which present in prose what should be in synonyms and hyponyms sections, once the distinct senses are recognized and straightforwardly defined. DCDuringTALK 13:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

'Setness' is something that is not quite as absolute as a naive user of the entry might think. Word order, inflection, grammatical transformations (eg, passivization), substitution of synonyms, insertion of determiners, and insertion of adjectives or other modifiers are all departures from the strictest sense of 'setness'. The set of phrases what allow absolutely no variation is relatively small. ('Kick the bucket' allows some verb inflection. Some proverbs might be absolutely invariant, but are not typical set phrases.) Some of the use of the term set phrase seems to include semantically transparent expressions that are nonetheless "invariant" because of their role as speech acts, broadly defined, or simply by dint of repetition, eg, catchphrases. Moreover, some uses of 'set phrase' seem to refer to expressions that do allow substitution of synonyms though one form is often significantly more common, especially in a specific time period and usage context. Rather than incorporate specific criteria such as "substitution of synonyms" into the definitions, we could use multiple (at least two) definitions as stakes that are not too specific, but near the boundaries of the range of meaning.

How about replacement of the definitions as follows?

Ancommon expression whose wording is not subject to little variation.

Any idiomatic expression A common expression whose words cannot be replaced by synonymous words without compromising the meaning.

I know this is RfV, but I am not really happy trying to specifically cite the definitions as currently worded and I would like opinions before changing the entry. DCDuringTALK 14:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Attestable?! Has anyone ever said this? It sounds like a joke made up for a book of tongue-twisters. Equinox◑ 22:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a definite known regional phrase, maybe in rare usage nowadays? (Actually, it was only recent that I've heard of this, so I thought I'd put it on Wiktionary.) Anyway, I've put a cite on the page, but I'm not sure if that's enough as I'm struggling to find it used in the media or books. CokeHanx (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who actually trying to transcribe the Yorkshire dialect (instead of just making a joke) would ever write this as "tintintin" though. It's "'ti'n'tint'tin" (although perhaps with fewer apologetic apostrophes), which means exactly wha i' says on't tin (sorry!). Anyway, found a couple of citations that could fit, but one is immediately explained afterwards and in both cases, the context is "Don't those Tykes speak funny?" 12. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added one of those citations (2004), but the other is a mention, not a use. CokeHanx's 2011 citation is likewise a mention, not a use. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a Yorkshireman and it looks like baloney to me. The pronunciation's fractionally off, and more importantly I see no reason anyone would ever write it that way. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as another Yorkshireman, I agree that it's a mis-spelling and a misrepresentation, though it might well appear as a puzzle or joke. Dbfirs 17:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to understand how this could be a mis-spelling; I thought it were another one of those eye dialect spellings, like (laik = lek = layk) or (thissen = thee sen) for example. The way I see it, there's no standardised form of spellings such as these (as I choose to write them as 'laik' and 'thissen'). It seems alot easier to write it as 'tintintin' rather than ''ti'n'tint'tin' though, even when pronouncing it as just 'tin tin tin'. CokeHanx (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well Yorkshire spelling if fairly well standardised in the use of apostrophes, so I repeat my assertion that "tintintin" is both a mis-spelling (in that it doesn't follow established conventions), and a mis-pronunciation in that it sounds like a Southerner's attempt to imitate the dialect. Dbfirs 10:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot believe that this is actually up for possible removal. Do youngsters even know how common this used to be, or are they.even from yorkshire? Anyone can be from yorkshire and still never heard the term.

I used to live just outside the Barnsley area and by gum I am not going to see something as funny as this get removed from the internet. It has already been given a source as to where it was used in a book, therefore it is a known spelling, so leave the bloody thing already.

Not removal -- that would be "Request for deletion". We are not doubting the existence, just questioning whether it is a dictionary word, and it is borderline. All it needs is one more citation to satisfy our criteria, so I've added one from the Sheffield area. Do Barnsley people actually pronounce it as a series of three stanna? I still think that the spelling is used as a deliberate joke. Tom Fletcher puts just one apostrophe in the "word" in his 1979 Bavarica Anglica. Dbfirs 13:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Esperanto for "neutered cat". I can't find anything on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Google Groups, but there appears to be some interference from Finnish and romanized Japanese, so I may have missed something. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Esperanto suffix supposedly meaning "neutered". I couldn't find any uses of "ĉevaluko(j)(n)", "bovuko(j)(n)", "katuko(j)(n)", "kokuko(j)(n)", or "porkuko(j)(n)" on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro, and a search for the string "inuko" on Tekstaro found no results. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Google Groups and Google Books turn up only mentions for me too, in Usenet posts dating back as far as 1993, and PMEG (1985) (disaparagingly) mentioning it (giving ĉevalinuko, kokinuko, porkuko, bovuko, maskluko, an inuko as examples). One of the Usenet posts is an inquiry what "samideano Eikholz" meant by the affix, so perhaps someone named Eikholz used it somewhere, whoever that is. Seems perhaps amusing, but pretty useless. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Rfv-sense. French: to agree. The usage example is for ça marche which means 'it works; it functions', which in fact I think is best translated by 'ok' or 'all right not 'I agree'. Does marcher ever mean to agree, which is what the definition says it does? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that there is a more common spelling that is attestable, but this certainly isn't it. I would try things like "baruh u uvaruh shemo" or "baruch hu uvaruch shemo" (the latter is also one of the common transliterations of the Hebrew phrase, so it would be hard to attest as specifically Ladino). --WikiTiki89 17:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No it's suggesting that oût is a phonetic rendering of août because people had already stopped dropping the initial 'a' sound. I think the Old French aoust would be pronounced /a.ust/, see w:Old French language#Phonology. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Passes based on the citations above. Does it need to be tagged "archaic"? - -sche(discuss) 20:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This sounds pretty implausible, but I tried to check, anyway. It's apparently a term in Indian philosophy, and it's real hard to filter out all the Latin text, so I bogged down after going through a hundred or so Google books hits. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added two noun senses and converted the RFV to an RFV-sense as a result. I can't find any attestation for the challenged sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It must be a hoped-for alternative to negatory#Adverb. Why is it under a Particle PoS header? DCDuringTALK 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've come across this exactly once: in the movie Mean Girls, where it is a slang term invented by one of the characters which doesn't catch on. Google Books results for "so fetch", "totally fetch", "fetch outfit" etc find nothing useful, and the only relevant Google Groups hits are discussing the movie Mean Girls. So, is this just fancruft, or has someone made fetch happen? Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

RFV of the noun sense "A deliberately misleading explanation." and the verb sense "To give a deliberately false interpretation of." It's not in the OED, but it is in M-W. Anyway, it would be nice to have quotations. --WikiTiki89 15:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The OED has "to veil in specious language". This is the same sense, isn't it? This sense seems to be derived via both etymological routes. Dbfirs 16:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As an Australian I hear this from time to time, usually used as derogatory slang among youth. I can find some hits on Google Groups, mostly on non-Usenet Australian groups, but they aren't really helpful in citing the term (and since they aren't Usenet groups, not relevant in any case). I'd be surprised if there isn't more out there, since this definitely exists in some circles. This, that and the other (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's likely that this is confused with Lebo, another Australian slang term. I've definitely heard "lebo" being used to mean "lesbian" but maybe that is just the youth of today hearing the word "lebo" and assuming it is a shortening of "lesbian", when originally it was a shortening of "Lebanese". This, that and the other (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The only other one I can find there is absolute word salad, which I don't think can be used to cite anything:

Mickey King Kong was a vampire, who was minutely one of the more than supermillionfold, millionesque, submillion, googolesque, googolfold, googolplexesque, and googolplexfold quasi-reincarnations of the great cone and Janie Seymour, being combinations of supervampirism, superlyncanthropy, super-O, superstigmata, piezoelectricity, superelectricity, tertiary abiogenesis, superabiogenesis, tertiary carmot, and supercarmot.

No sign of any adjectival use (e.g., no "googolfold increases"). Can anyone help? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've added three citations for the adverb sense, including the first Google Books quote that you gave above. I note, though, that the Google Books quote uses a hyphen ("googol-fold"), but the hyphen occurs at a line break, so it's unclear whether the intended spelling is "googolfold" or "googol-fold". —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Pursuant to the post in the TR, I couldn't find anything in BGC that was actually the exact word "allotroph" once I clicked on it that wasn't in fact a mention or the second sense, although I'm RFVing the whole thing since I'm not sure the second sense should be included either, as it is not exactly a misspelling but certainly not accurate, either. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Our definition seems silly: where else would energy come from, the nuclear reactor one was born with?

I see apparent uses of allotroph more often in German scholarly works, with a meaning something like heterotroph, I think. I must leave that to someone with better German and biology/biochemistry than mine.

There are some "efforts" to move Tatar, Kazakh and Kyrgyz spellings from Cyrillic into Latin on corresponding Wiktionaries, often helped by Turks. It happens before Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tatarstan (a republic in Russia) officially adopted Latin. The change may eventually happen (as with Uzbek, Turkmen and Crimean Tatar) but I think it's unhelpful to use the alphabet, which is not in common use.

The changes are made by nationalists, not linguists, so there are many inconsistencies and mistakes. Turkish (-Tatar, etc.) dictionaries use incorrect forms and are full of mistakes. In most cases, the words cannot be verified. The artificial Tatar Latin spellings usually follow Turkish, English, Crimean Tatar or other spellings. The conversions results in a loss, e.g. letter "ь" is often ignored in the Roman spelling.

This is RFV; it should only matter whether this spelling is attested in Tatar writing. It should not matter what is official and what is not. The fact that this is Tatar in Roman letters is not sufficient for removal via RFV, as per WT:CFI#Attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Just making sure we go by attestation, not by "this is not the official script", for which, as you know, there have been some tendencies around here despite English Wiktionary's being a descriptivist dictionary. Also making sure that, after this fails as unattested, it is not used as evidence of practice of going by an "official" script. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

By all means, Dan. There is no harm in giving some background. I'm interested to see how much (Volga) Tatar is written in Roman, which may affect Tatar entries in Roman letters. Previous RFV's showed that a number of Tatar written in Roman were actually Crimean Tatar or were copied from from Turkish-Tatar dictionaries with no attestation, some were just made up and could not be found. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад) 21:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, sometimes you have citations but it's unclear or disputed in what language they actually are. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A Hawaiian name for a small town in Chile? And one with an impossible syllable structure for Hawaiian (the glottal stop ʻ, like all consonants in Hawaiian, must be followed by a vowel)? I'm skeptical. Hawaiian is an LDL so a single mention is sufficient. Google has nothing but us and mirrors. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The same editor added some other translations of Pichilemu that don't seem to turn up any Google results outside of Wikimedia projects and mirrors—I've added some of them below, but there are others too. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe there was an Old English entry as well, which, if memory serves, failed rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there guys. I don't recall where exactly this spelling was obtained, probably from my IRC chats back in 2010 (?). Anyways, if there is no source for these spellings, best thing should be to delete them. I have no worries about that. Regards and, everyone keep up the good job at keeping Wiktionary as a correct tool! --Diego Grez (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Latin. This one is harder to search for, since it's spelled the same way as the English and Spanish words, but I can't find anything durably archived that looks like Latin. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

These are not from permanently recorded media. Furthermore, the second and the third are dependent (WT:CFI#Independent), since they are by the same author. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit rusty on Dutch, but I think it's attestable. Unfortunately Dutch Wiktionary doesn't list the diminutive. Diminutives do not always follow the ending of the parent noun. This is something DrJos can answer, I imagine. Donnanz (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging User:DrJos: is this (rather than, say, bijwerkingje) the correct diminutive of bijwerking? I do see one citation on Google Books:

The rule is that if there is a stressed syllable before the syllable with the "-ing" suffix, the last -g- turns into "-kje" to make it a diminutive. If the stress is earlier in the word -g- becomes -etje. So "bijwerking" becomes "bijwerkinkje" --DrJos (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Last time the arguments about whether or not to keep olinguito and the like came up, we agreed to keep it provisionally as a "hot word" to see whether usage satisfying CFI would appear once the term had existed for more than a year. This worked out for the English term, but I'm not sure there are any durably archived citations of this in Italian (I tried "gli olinguiti" and "l'olinguito" and did not find a single Italian use in a book), and more than a year has passed since Italians first used the word. This time, if we come up short we must delete the Italian entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Books are not the only source of citations. One definite print use from May 2014 here and one I'm uncertain about here (the website is "Partnered with la Repubblica", but I dont know whether that means la Repubblica reprints anything from it) which would push it over the one year mark. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it’s spelled wrong for Italian. The Italian should be olinghito, as mentioned here. —Stephen(Talk) 06:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

ènal lists ènaux as a plural. Neither seem to be attested. I can only find ènal in combination e.g. "pent-4-ènal" (Chimie Organique, 2002) and never on its own. Énal is what I'd expect it to be called if it ever was used on its own, but perhaps it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I can find no citation for this usage as a conjunction meaning "rather than". It's not in the OED, and the example sentence (also unsourced) is perfectly compatible with meaning given in the OED: a variant (Middle English) spelling of "afore" (= before). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Relatedly, some of the quotations for the verb sense of affor look to me like they are actually uses of the preposition meaning "before" (though I don't know enough Middle English to be sure about all of them). If someone familiar with Middle English and Early Modern English could sort those out, that would be wonderful. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and not just some - nearly all of the verb citations match afore (before) rather than "afford". A look at Google Books also finds no hits for "afforring" except an obvious OCR error for "affording"; nor for "afforred" (similar errors for "afforded"); nor for "affors", which appears as various misreadings such as "affors'd" (i.e. "aforesaid"), OCR error for "actors", and similar. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no such verb. Why has it been sitting there in our entry for seven years? We need to delete this part of speech, but we can keep the cites as prepositions. The OED has afore as a conjunction meaning "before", but marks it as "Now archaic and regional". In my native dialect, "afore" is used to mean rather than where others might use "before" with the same meaning (see our entry: "rather or sooner than") at our entry for before (conjunction). I've never seen it spelt affor, but the OED has one cite with this spelling (as a conjunction in 1470). Dbfirs 20:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "types of quilted or depressed effects in fabrics". Added as a noun with no gender. I cannot find such a noun, therefore I can't add a gender! Renard Migrant (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no that word at the Turkish! --123snake45 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the result of this, it would be nice for this, in Kazakh and Turkish (if that survives) to get an actual definition. program is decently polysemous, and thus a poor definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've found another quotation in a social science journal—however, all three quotations are from late 2014, so they don't meet the requirement of spanning more than a year. Should we call it a hot word? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In my imagined to-be-eventually-written-down criteria for hot words, I actually explicitly exclude "inventions" — since I think these are more likely to be temporary fads than other neologisms. — Keφr 17:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a case for that, but this probably will either be deleted or no longer be hot by the time that gets voted on.

I found a cluster of cites from the website of various print newspapers and CNET that dates from late August 2014 and another from another one dated in 2013 from an Australian website that looks like it is web-only, but might not be. Do others share my estimation that none of these meet our "durably archived" criterion? If so, the "hot word" calendar begins with the 18 December 2014 Usenet citation. DCDuringTALK 19:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but we need to check on it 15 months or so after the first cite (a book published December 2014) to confirm that it has become a lasting part of the language, unless you'd like us to flout that part of CFI. DCDuringTALK 23:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Like you said that's 12 months from now. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Less if there the possible cites above are valid. DCDuringTALK 23:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Found newspaper cites going back to March 2014. Seems that selfie sticks became popular in Asia around that time. Whereas they didn't become popular globally until late 2014. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: An aromantic or platonic attraction (by analogy with crush).

I've encountered this sense before "in the wild," so it's not something made up by the editor who added it to the entry, but I'm having trouble finding uses in CFI-compliant cites. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've heard it before too, though not very often. I managed to find one quotation, which I've added to the one that was already in the entry. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The musical term comes from Sanskrit चक्रवाक (cakravāka), which can be literally translated as the rfved sense. The problem is that we're talking about usage in English, capitalized and with this spelling. I suspect the contributor threw in this sense because the musical and the duck sense are the same word in Sanskrit (and presumably in some descendent languages), so they figured they must be the same in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for "child murderer". I've only ever heard this used to mean "child molester", i.e. someone who sexually abuses children, but I'm not a native speaker of German and there could be senses I'm unaware of. Nevertheless, both Duden and German Wiktionary list only the "child molester" sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth: I would actually consider this term a very strict sum-of-parts with schänden (“desecrate, violate, rape”) with the meaning 'child rapist'. You wouldn't apply this term lightly to someone who hasn't conducted strongly sexual acts. Murder just happens to accompany that often. Korn (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

One mention in snippet view here. It seems to be a word list with definitions and some etymological information. As far as I can tell, the Turkish seems to be a compound of baş (“head”) + üstüne (“above or on top of”), so the Spanish gloss of encima delacabeza fits the literal meaning of the Turkish (I suspect the Turkish is equivalent as an expression to something like "yes sir!" or "you're the boss!", but I don't speak Turkish). This shows the word in use, but the semantics require some stretching to make it work- close enough to be plausible, though. Since Ladino is no doubt an LDL, the one mention should be sufficient if we accept it. As I said earlier, Ladino is tricky to attest, because the orthography is far from standardized, and because there's geographical variation, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Should it be a language with limited documentation? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for the article's following definitions: apply, smear, plaster and to put on. I couldn't find any sources for these definitions but I thought maybe one of our native Chinese editors might have more insight into the situation than I do. Bumm13 (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant to attestation, but surely any sequence can be potentially turned into a palindrome by just repeating it in the reverse order on the end of what is already there. I suppose words (other than short ones) that can potentially becomes palindromes that are words might be interesting. Race comes to mind (racecar). Renard Migrant (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What the entry creator seems to have meant is that you can form a palindrome by anagramming. Equinox◑ 12:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I request evidence that this is used to refer specifically to the cobra, as opposed to any other snake. — Ungoliant(falai) 12:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't read Portuguese well enough to find actual uses for you, but sense 2 of this definition narrows it down to specifically the genus Naja. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That’s a start. That definition claims it is European usage, but the Priberam dictionary, which focuses on European Portuguese, does not mention that narrow sense. — Ungoliant(falai) 19:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So if cobra just means "snake" to Brazilians, what do you call cobras? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Fear of floods. Only in word lists. The one citation given has poor grammar and appears to be a vanity-published poem by a subliterate writer. Equinox◑ 20:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Th eother" and "learing" were typos introduced by an editor. They weren't found in the original text. It's "learning to read was thy great antlophobia." It's think it's a metaphor for finding learning to read as a young child to be overwhelming — fearing that you're going to be inundated by words. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That etymology is wrong. The actual Greek form used was γηράσκω (gēráskō, “I grow old”). The coiner obviously looked it up in a dictionary without knowing any of the grammar and just added phobia to the lemma form- with ungrammatical results. If Ancient Greek didn't have such a truly spectacular array of methods to create nouns from verbs, I might understand- but it does. This just shows how amateurish these phobia names often are ("fear of I grow old"? Yeesh!).Chuck Entz (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Fear of flashes of light. Only in word lists. Equinox◑ 21:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've found two meanings, which I suspect may be the case for a few -phobias: there's the "fear of..." sense, which is what you'll find in the word lists, and there's also a biological "intolerance of..." sense. So selaphobia might be the fear of flashes, or, in ophthalmology, an intolerance to them. chlorophobia might be a fear of Chlorine (or of Chloroform, or simply of the colour green), or a botanic intolerance to Chlorine compounds.

More to the point, there is an issue which came up on my talk page in conversation with Equinox on this matter, and that's what would count for an attestation. I submit that these phobias come as a packet of concepts: the condition, the condition as an adjective, and the thing suffering the condition (-phobia, -phobic, -phobe). (And adverb -phobically?) Many of these terms are very specialised, and may turn up in scientific papers relatively rarely, such that we might have an insufficient number of attestations for any given form, and thus be forced to delete all three forms and with them the entire concept.

It's not quite the same as using examples of the genitive or plural to attest the lemma, but I don't think it's that far off. So I submit that for this sort of "package" of forms, it should be possible to use, eg., "selaphobic" and "selaphobe" to attest "selaphobia", and vice-versa. That is, any of the forms of the package work as attestation of the package. This could be the basis of a "See also" template for such things listing the various forms (so: autism/autistic/autist/autistically, or schizophrenia/schizophrenic/schizophrenic/schizophrenically, although that would be for cross-reference more than the need to aggregate attestations to make critical mass.)

This does seem close to what we do with verbs (where I've noted a strong consensus to create the -s, -ing, -ed forms even if not all of them are attestable). I don't like the idea, though, since I prefer to treat each word/spelling as a separate item. Equinox◑ 17:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really consider inflections (plural forms and verb tenses) to be individual words, and thus I don't think they need to be independently cited, unless they're irregular in some way. But nouns, verbs, adjectives, or any other POS should be considered separate words, and thus I think they need to be independently cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My position is that "selaphobic" does not attest "selaphobia"; even if "selaphobic" is attested, "selaphobia" can fail RFV and be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

My fear is that neither form will make critical mass on its own (I've moved the cites you deleted to selaphobic, by the way), both will independently fail CFI, and thus the term in its entirety will be deleted. Even if they are aggregated it will be close, unless someone else has better luck finding another cite for each sense. But still, I see a situation where a word can clearly exist, if rarely, but be deleted through the technicality that one citation used person-first language or some such perfectly regular and predictable variation. --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 12:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "person-first language"; one of the forms is a noun, the other is an adjective. They are different words, not just different inflected forms. Three quotations is already a very low threshold; I find it unwise to lower it by pooling morphologically related forms (like "carry", "carrier", and "carriage" or those mentioned by you above: autism/autistic/autist/autistically, schizophrenia/schizophrenic/schizophrenic/schizophrenically). In similar way, each -ness form should be attested on its own, rather than entered when the adjective from which the -ness form is formed is attested. Ditto for agent nouns: they should be attested on their own rather than created automatically when the verb is attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Person-first language is a fashion in disability circles to avoid using the word meaning "person-with-condition" ("autist", "paraplegic"), but instead explicitly saying "person with autism", "person with paraplegia", etc. (The idea is to explicitly state the person as most semantically important, not defining them by the condition.) Many autists, for example, find this ridiculous and faintly patronising, and see person-first language, for our condition at least, akin to saying "person with maleness". In this case you might find that a rare but real condition, with a real, if rare, word would fail attestation because the votes were split between the condition and the person-with-condition, even though they're all referring to the same thing. Which is why I split off the cites for selaphobic, rather than let them vanish completely. Surely someone has better access to ophthalmology papers? Or Epilepsy studies? --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Fear of stairs/slopes. Only in word lists. The WP article only cites a word list. Equinox◑ 21:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Cited. Most phobias are just barely citable. It can seem like they're not because finding cites requires combing through pages and pages of wordlists in the Google Books results. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is my position that the likes of "bathmophobia (fear of stairs)" and "bathmophobia, which is a fear of stairs or steep slopes" should not count for attestation. Or they should count to show the meaning, but should not count to the list of quotations in which the word is pressed to do a semantic job on its own. However, there is no consensus for this position, AFAIK; WT:CFI#Conveying meaning supports 'They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind' as fine, which I don't. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it might be worthwhile to enact something to the effect that /phobia$/ entries may be deleted on sight unless properly cited? And an edit filter to explain it. — Keφr 20:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Also /philia$/ though that is a lesser problem AFAICT. DCDuringTALK 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/41. Please check it for errors and run it through any bureaucracy you feel is appropriate: BP, vote, whatever. — Keφr 20:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Just attributive use of the noun? — Ungoliant(falai) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to tell the difference between an uncountable noun and an incomparable adjective. None of the tests at Wiktionary:English adjectives seem to be capable of distinguishing between these two. So what kind of citation would (hypothetically) be able to demonstrate that "wood" is indeed an incomparable adjective as well as a noun? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Predicative use, i.e. you can say “this toy is wooden”, but can you say “this toy is wood”? — Ungoliant(falai) 20:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, you can. [61][62][63][64] But it's not completely obvious to me whether these are predicative uses of an adjective or an uncountable noun. But if you think they're good enough, I'll add them to the entry. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious IMO. It feels like "this music is (genre)": more of a noun usage. Equinox◑ 21:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Granger: I'd apply Occam's razor. If we have a noun entry for a word then there should be some unambiguous evidence for its adjectivity to support an Adjective PoS section. I can find three cites (1, 3 & 4) ["be|am|is|are|be|being|was|were more wood than" -"there is|was more wood than" here] at Google Books for the following collocation: "[be] more wood (than)". If upheld, that would let us keep the Adjective section. DCDuringTALK 22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Saying "it's more wood than metal" doesn't make it an adjective, though. —CodeCat 22:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I tend to see "this table is wood" as an adjectival usage. Dictionaries having this adjectival sense at "wood" include AHD[65] and Merriam-Webster (entry 3)[66]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, now as before, I consider this use of RFV less than fortunate, since for English there are no conclusive purely evidence-based criteria for adjectivity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The OED has only the obsolete adjective (our etymology 2) meaning mad. Are we being wooden about this? We do have steel as an adjective, and the OED doesn't, but why don't we have soap and cardboard as adjectives? (Later note: we do now for cardboard, with good cites. Thanks, Mr. Granger.) Dbfirs 17:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: In most cases the evidence is extremely clear. Evidence is to be preferred to gum-flapping wherever possible. We can reduce the gum-flapping to evaluation and weighing of evidence, in this case, that of the judgment of lexicographers and the corpus data. It is very hard for me to take as meaningful an individual vote which often represents nothing more than an idiolect or a completely uninformed opinion. And articulate arguments based on agreed-to principles have become scarcer over time. DCDuringTALK 17:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather go by Merriam-Webster than OED. Merriam-Webster does have an adjective sense for "steel"[67]. We could have an adjective sense in cardboard, just like Merriam-Webster[68]; however, they may have the adjective sense to accompany the figurative adjective sense that they have. Again, since adjectivity is hard to detect based only on evidence, I discourage and oppose this use of RFV. Yes, there are cases where the evidence clearly supports adjectivity, but absence of such evidence requires judgment and discussion to determine the adjectivity, as per the existence of incomparable adjectives. Under the assumption that we take this RFV seriously, occurrences of "this table is wood" should count toward attestation as adjective, IMHO. This RFV should be closed as out-of-scope (my preferable closure), or as passed. We have no evidence to tell us whether "this table is wood" is an adjectival use, so we do have to use judgment or linguistic sense; hence the propriety of RFD for these kind of cases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

RFV can be useful and appropriate in such cases, since the POS is part of the sense, and it seems perfectly acceptable to challenge whether there's usage for the sense as an adjective. The problem comes when the evidence is inconclusive: the presumption with rfd is for keeping unless the case is made for deletion, while with rfv it's for deletion unless the case (in the form of citations) is made for keeping. I have no problem with using rfv- unless someone tries to close it as failed when citations have been provided, but they're ambiguous.Chuck Entz (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for both senses: (1) an introvert who likes outdoorsy activities, and (2) a synonym for extrovert. The entry was created with sense (1) by an anon who later registered as User:‎Logophilic K; that sense was replaced by sense (2) by User:SemperBlotto. Logophilic K objected to that in the Tea room, so I've restored both senses and am RFVing both of them here, so we can find out how this word is actually used in durably archived sources. Incidentally, all I can find on b.g.c is this, which is short on context but appears to be sense (2). But I can't find 2 more attestations of it in that sense. As far as I can tell, all other b.g.c hits of "outrovert", "outroverts", and "outroverted" are scannos for the corresponding forms of controvert. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added two citations for the "extrovert" sense. Both appear to be written by non-native English speakers. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a joke, but it might coincidentally turn out to be attested. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

'God's house' is obviously very prevalent in a Christian sense, and its Arabic form meaning Kaaba as well, but I am unsure about this capitalised form having an idiomatic meaning of 'the Kaaba' in English. I looked and couldn't see it using Google Books. Kaixinguo (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This is one of a huge number of entries generated by User:Equinox based on the assumption that anything with the ending in -idae refers to a taxonomic family in the animal kingdom, which means it has a corresponding noun ending in -id that refers to a member of that family. Mostly, that's true, but there are exceptions: first of all, botanical names for subclasses also end in -idae, and then there are cases like this one, where a Latin- or Greek-derived term uses the plural from the original language (the w:Achaemenidae were a dynasty of ancient Persian rulers). I might have just speedied this one, but the history shows an earlier attempt at removing this information that was reverted, so I brought it here to be on the safe side: is this ever used to refer to members of a taxonomic, rather than a human, family? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a particularly complete source for insect taxonomy. I tried Biodiversity Heritage library, Index of Organism Names, Encyclopedia of Life, Catalog of Life, and ITIS. No joy on Achaemendidae as a taxon. There is a genus of bug Achaemenes in Cixiidae family. (BTW, note all the redlinks among the genera at species:Cixiidae, a common situation for insect taxa.) DCDuringTALK 20:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why I created this in 2010. I can find two citations fairly easily, but literally not one more. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can find two citations fairly easily (citations written by modern French writers), you're more successful than me. Could you add them? I would be very interested. Lmaltier (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If they're Old or Middle French, then no problem keeping since those are both LDLs. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

My point is only about the modern French section. I'm not a specialist (not at all), but the following links seem very conclusive, the 2nd citation is not modern French either, and the modern French section should be removed:

This is the last definitionless Russian noun from Category:Russian entries needing definition. I don't know this word. (There's, of course an inflected form - genitive/accusative of коп (kop) (slang) - "ко́па", from English [[cop]], which makes searching complicated) If someone can find the definition, please add, otherwise it should be deleted. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад) 23:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

So it is in a dictionary. Now we only need attesting quotations in use as per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As a nominator, I'm withdrawing the request. I may add other etymologies/pronunciations later. Sorry for being a slack on this one :). Vahagn helped with this entry. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад) 21:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

MWOnline has it. I've never heard it. Is it archaic, obsolete? Does the OED have it? DCDuringTALK 05:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the OED has only the sense of scattered through space, not time. The equivalent expressions for time are now and then and now and again. I suppose the expression is sometimes used of time, by analogy, but I don't really think it means scattered through time. How do we distinguish between a meaning and a metaphor? Dbfirs 14:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: Thanks. I didn't think so, but I suspect you are right about metaphorical use. We don't have too much trouble with many mature metaphor-derived senses of nouns like head, but "live"-but-dying metaphors (or protologistic metaphor-based senses) are harder. It would be nice to have some actual instances of the purported temporal use that we could assess. OED was my best hope, but I'll try some other dictionaries that sometimes have citations. DCDuringTALK 14:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

e.g. 2009, John Bogard, The Message from the Cosmos (page 63): "Before we study his ideas, it is useful to note here again that extraterrestrial powers intervened here and there in his life, as early as his birth, then his baptism […] ". Equinox◑ 15:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after trawling through more than 200 Google Books, I found another example from 2011, R. E. Donald, Slow Curve on the Coquihalla (chapter 23): "Yep. Since nineteen sixty, or thereabouts. Missed a few years, here and there."

I suppose "at this and that point in space" can be used by analogy to mean "at this and that point in time", just as "now and again" is sometimes used for points in space. We are travellers through the four-dimensional manifold.

I wonder if "intermittently, occasionally" would be a better definition than "from time to time"? Dbfirs 16:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Weird. I'd consider it pretty common, as common as the spatial sense. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you move at a different speed and so live on a different world line? :)Dbfirs 20:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's often ambiguous. I find the 2009 cite ambiguous, though not the 2011 cite. In any event, the citations will be proof against a COPYVIO of MW Online, especially if we use them to support wording such as Dbfirs'. DCDuringTALK 19:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It certainly can mean now and again in my idiolect. I would argue that in most cases, the meaning of spatially scattered and temporally scattered are so inextricably linked for that it must necessarily mean both. For instance in the sentence "The man showed up here and there," the appearances of the man must necessarily be spatially and temporally separated, which might have given rise to the figurative meaning of now and then. I also agree that it is very hard to construct sentences that are explicitly of one meaning or the other. —JohnC5(Talk | contribs) 20:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

But you can't say "The man showed up here and there at his kitchen window overlooking the road."

You would have to say "now and again" where the spatial context is restricted. Dbfirs 10:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "The man showed up now and again at his kitchen window overlooking the road" but instead "Now and again, the man showed up now and again at his kitchen window overlooking the road" or "The man showed up at his kitchen window overlooking the road now and again." For some reason, that placement after the verb does not work for me. But in the other two locations, I could definitely say "Here and there, the man showed up at his kitchen window overlooking the road" and "The man showed up at his kitchen window overlooking the road here and there." This, however, may just be the topicalization or backing obscuring the apparent spatial contradiction. —JohnC5(Talk | contribs) 10:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how widely this is shared. Thank goodness we don't have to depend on individual reporting of their idiolect. DCDuringTALK 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ive found one more cite, not sure about the year because the book seems to have been privately published by the author: Andre Maxwell Jacob, And Then There Was Life! (page 218): "She told Justina and Miles everything, pausing here and there trying to remember every little detail of her day."

If my sample of books is representative of the corpus, then usage for a timelike interval is less than 1% of usage for a spacelike interval. Dbfirs 21:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised by the rarity of unambiguously temporal cites for this particular term, where both main terms are principally spatial and alternatives like now and then are available. In my idiolect, I try to use the words that are more specific to the temporal realm. At least I think I do. It is fascinating how many basic time words, like prepositions (after, before) have a spatial etymology. DCDuringTALK 21:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(There seems to be citation in this Texan(!) newspaper article but I can't see the whole thing, and the snippet does have OCR issues, so I wouldn't trust it unless someone can verify it: "He was Ii need of an umbrella, and on Christmas Bvi he arrived home from the office carrying a new umberstick.") Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Only from the perspective of someone with the most remote awareness of the field, IMO. DCDuringTALK 21:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Bizbabble. Many wordy terms are invented by idiots who feel the need to invent rubbish to justify their overpaid, useless business positions, while useful, skilled people with e.g. computer tech skills are marginalised. These phrases never mean anything; they are just foul, vile back-slappery by bigmouths. Kill it with fire. Equinox◑ 23:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete - nothing more than the sum of its parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(Amusingly, when searching for this symbol with QQ, I get, among other things, a few calculus textbooks. Google Books API apparently considers this symbol equivalent to the string "DY". No such thing happens with regular b.g.c search, however.) — Keφr 11:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This strikes me as something more likely to be found on Usenet (Google Groups). How hard is it to enable QQ for such? QQ looks like a cool tool, though the documentation is not adequate for someone like me. It doesn't really SELL the tool. DCDuringTALK 16:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Next to impossible, unfortunately. Google Groups Search does not offer a public JSON API. As for documentation, feel free to write something better… — Keφr 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

And I would agree if by "more likely" you meant "≥" instead of ">". Usenet has always struck me as somewhat traditionalist, so to speak — in this case, sticking to bare ASCII (or at the very least characters you can type on a keyboard without looking them up in a character table) unless there is a necessity to do otherwise. — Keφr 17:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If I understood QQ I could document it. Unfortunately the lack of documentation prevents me.

I thought that the image would be the kind of thing that someone would like to be able to produce as a comment on someone else's post. DCDuringTALK 11:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There is little to be understood. Just enable it and try it out. — Keφr 17:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not related to the discussion but the symbol has a smile (eyes and mouth) when viewed on an iPad but there's no smile on PC. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад) 21:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably a matter of which font is used by each. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's used in published articles from paper science journals, so yes. -- 65.94.40.137 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The end result of this effect is the perception of a symmetrically receding pair of sound sources, which, in the luminal world, is a good description of symmetric radio sources (Double Radio source Associated with Galactic Nucleus)

DOI 10.1142/S0218271807010559 Are Radio Sources and Gamma Ray Bursts Luminal Booms? Manoj Thulasidas (2007) International Journal of Modern Physics D

Since nobody has yet proposed a name for this phenomenon, I shall do so now: we should call them DRAGNs, which is an acronym for 'Double Radio source Associated with Galactic Nucleus'.

It would be helpful if Wiktionary had the external reference templates that Wikipedia has for linking to DOIs, PMIDs, PMCIDs, BIBCODEs, since they link to information to find the published science papers and their journals. -- 65.94.40.137 15:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RFV of all three English senses. I was trying to clean up this entry, but without seeing actual usages, it was a bit difficult. I did try searching for these terms in Google Books, but there was significant pollution from other languages, abbreviations, scannos, etc. This, that and the other (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence of the three senses which were RFVed, and I did try numerous phrases, e.g. "eight ques" (make up one penny), "two ques", "for a que" (the phrase in the cite Droigheann provides, above), and "que apiece".
I can, however, cite que, 'que and 'cue as uncommon, informal short forms of barbecue/barbeque.- -sche(discuss) 04:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Any objection to deleting all three RFVed senses? The "misspelling of cue" sense has citations, but it's so vanishingly rare compared to cue that I don't think it merits inclusion. - -sche(discuss) 04:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed all three senses as RFV-failed per my comment above. Citations (including mentions and references and typos) moved to the citations page. - -sche(discuss) 21:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The only good evidence of this verb I can find it here, which is 3rd conjugation and does not possess perfect forms. If this is the case, most of the forms will need to be removed and add the 3rd conjugation forms added. —JohnC5(Talk | contribs) 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see your link, but Lewis & Short simply have “‘post-class., prodient, for prodibunt,’ Lact. 7, 16 fin.”, suggesting the only form of this verb that's actually attested is the third-person plural future. I don't think that warrants a whole entry with a bunch of imaginary forms. We should just have an entry for prōdient identifying it as a Late Latin alternative form of prōdībunt. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's strange about that link; http://www.latin-dictionary.net appears to be down, but if you search prodio on it when it's up, it will return it. It's cited source is Souter's A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D, to which I do not have access. Regardless, this verb whole should be expunged in my opinion. —JohnC5(Talk | contribs) 22:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, we should be careful not remove forms of prodeo proper, if we choose to remove most prodio because I'm sure there is some overlap. —JohnC5(Talk | contribs) 22:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

All of the Google Books hits of "prodio" I looked at were scannos of proelio. "Prodis" gets a few Latin hits which aren't scannos (vide google books:"prodis"), e.g. Ovid's line "me mihi, perfide, prodis?", but prodis (although the entry does not currently admit it) is also an inflection of prodeo in addition to prodio, so it doesn't help us any. - -sche(discuss) 20:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@JohnC5, Angr: can you please tag or delete (respectively) whatever forms need to be deleted, or strike out this RFV if that has been done already? Thanks, - -sche(discuss) 21:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@-sche: I've given the (theoretically) correct conjugation at prodio. I will try to tag the errant forms soonish. —JohnC5 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Allegedly Scottish Gaelic for "song". Found no evidence for the claim. --Droigheann (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Me neither. The page was started by someone whose whose use page describes him as "gd-0". There's an Old Irish verb canaid (“to sing”) and a Modern Irish verb form canaid (“they sing”), but apparently no Scottish Gaelic noun. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Japanese for "planeswalker". The German, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish translations all failed RFV above, and this translation looks just as unattested. - -sche(discuss) 19:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be Middle English only. If converted to a Middle English entry (or even if not), it needs to be cross-linked with quemeful (whether or not that word is also Middle English or modern English). - -sche(discuss) 03:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The only modern English citation I can find is already in the entry. Wycliffe's Bible also uses the word, so if someone can find an edition that was printed after 1500, that may be a second citation. See also my comments about #quemful, above. - -sche(discuss) 03:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The OED has 5 citations of quemful ~ quemeful under the article queemful, though all of the citations are from Middle English and none of them use the spelling queemful. —JohnC5(Talk | contribs) 03:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would the year of the edition matter? https://archive.org/details/englishhexaplaex00schouoft is an 1841 edition of (among others) Wycliffe's, but it's still Middle English. I guess there's all sorts of respellings/marginal translations of Middle English into more modern forms, but there's not going to be any obviously correct line there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Simple post-1500 reprints of Wycliffe are still Middle English, yes. But sometimes modern English authors update Middle English works, comprehensively modernizing the spelling and grammatical forms and replacing some of the obsolete vocabulary, effectively "translating" the works into modern English. And modern English translations of works are citable, I think (see my comments on Talk:undeadliness). The link above looks like a simple reprint of Middle English, though. - -sche(discuss) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

All of the citations I can find — I have added several to both entries — are Middle English, Scots, or a language that looks like a combination of the two ("I knaw hys canos har and lyard berd Of the wysast Roman kyng into the erd"). This is excluding one occurence in Totally Weird and Wonderful Words, because I think we've traditionally not considered other dictionaries' made-up usexes of terms to count as uses. - -sche(discuss) 09:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RFV-failed as English. The spelling lyard has been converted to Middle English. - -sche(discuss) 06:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "Tyrannosaurus rex". As the quotation accompanying the second sense shows, this word simply means tyrannosaur and not necessarily T. rex specifically, as opposed to other tyrannosaurs. However, I'm sending it to RFV and not RFD to give someone the chance to find citations that could unambiguously support this sense (I suspect there will be none). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I managed to cite reif and rief (in both English and Scots), and reave and reive, but I can't find evidence of this except as an obsolete spelling of (coral) reef. Even The English Dialect Dictionary has no citations of this form, and Century, although it lemmatizes reaf, says "Usually in Sc. spelling reif, rief", which sounds suspiciously like Webster's use of "usually" to mean "always".
It's not the first entry I've found that seems to have more sense-lines than there are citations of it.- -sche(discuss) 06:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Never came across "zastydlý puberťák", but per Google it's more common than "zamrzlý". As for "adultescent", I went by the Oxford Dictionaries definition "A middle-aged person whose clothes, interests, and activities are typically associated with youth culture." and example sentence "A new name has even been coined for people who don't act their age: adultescents.", but on second thoughts it's true that the Czech term is always pejorative and can be used for anybody no longer in their teens, so probably the translation I used is inappropriate without a usage note or something. --Droigheann (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that, most importantly, this collocation isn't idiomatic. Or is it? --AuvajsAuvajs (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: conjuction. Can't think of any sentence where it would be used as one. --Droigheann (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Since it is instrumental case of co, it may have this sense - "whereby", "what with", dependent on the context. I would convert to instrumental singular ofco. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад) 01:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

An example sentence would be something along the lines "Neuvěříte, čím si udělal radost!" or "S čím jsi to udělal?" (What did you do that with?). but I can't express myself well in Czech, sorry. Calling @Dan Polansky:, a native Czech speaker. BTW, @Droigheann:, you need a user page with a Babel table. :) --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад) 01:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it a bad form not to have one? Ну что, готово ;-). --Droigheann (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Savage tells us he'll appeal, and appeal, and appeal. But you can be sure of one thing. A man in the maximum security on death row will never 'walk away' to prowl the countryside again.” The jury retired on Saturday evening to deliberate.

(By the way, there are few hits for "sent to maximum security", but these seem to refer to maximum security areas within a prison with several areas.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think if the definition was right the hits would look more like "sent to a maximum security", of course not followed by "prison", "facility" etc. Siuenti (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the many widespread defects of our English definitions are, 1., incorrect, incomplete, or missing indication of countability and uncountability on the inflection line, 2., missing or incorrect marking of countability and uncountability at the sense level for polysemic terms, and, 3., wording of definitions inconsistent with the indicated countability or uncountability. The definition in question at least has the third defect: the indefinite article is not consistent with uncountable on the inflection line. DCDuringTALK 23:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: I found ten hits for "in|into|to maximum security [punctuation mark]" at COCA:

1 2011 SPOK NBC_Dateline After six years in maximum security , Glen Ake was nearly unrecognizable.

2 2002 NEWS USAToday brick prison walls passing by him are like scenes from his daydreams back in maximum security .

3 2002 NEWS Denver said he is ready to move from maximum to medium security. # While in maximum security , Glennie has been assaulted four times.

4 2002 NEWS Denver Glennie remains in maximum security ,

5 2000 FIC ScienceNews and I were unceremoniously shoved into soda cups and trundled back across the street into maximum security .

6 1996 NEWS WashPost receiving end, or made to spend a night at Lorton... in Maximum Security ... chained to a cell door... stark naked,

This indicates it is used without an article, possibly uncountable. Quote 3 suggests that it is not a set phrase. Quote 6 shows it being used as a proper noun in reference to a particular department or unit. Clearly maximum security is not a type of security in the usage here. In contrast under maximum security would indicate a type of security. I don't think it can be used after the same set of prepositions that security, in any sense, can. And etymologically it is clearly an ellipsis of phrases headed by prison, unit, detention, etc. Though I find it hard to believe that "it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means", the meaning being always transparent in context, I know of no instance where an item failed to be included for failing to meet that criterion. DCDuringTALK 00:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added and cited a noun section. I look forward to someone trying to cite this as a true adjective. DCDuringTALK 17:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I notice Random House has "maximum security" defined as an adjective, perhaps we can go with that as opposed to a noun! WritersCramp (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Me, too. Everything at google books:"a dancing belt" seems SOP, and/or refers to a thing worn by a woman. Sunset Marina initially looked like it had a use of this sense, but on closer inspection it too seems to say a woman is going to wear the belt, which makes it question whether it's using the sense in question. - -sche(discuss) 22:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Try googling "belly dancing belt", which can also be "belly dance belt". This definition is not shown under dance belt. Donnanz (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Created by a bot, almost certainly in error (número de Avogadro shouldn't be countable; the countable equivalent is mol). Of the four deduped Google Books hits, the first is "Números de Avogadro y de Loschmidt", the second one appears to be a typo (it reads "Al peso de la masa de gas que ocupa los 22.400 centímetros cúbicos (a la temperatura y presión normales) se le denomina molécula—gramo, y al número N de moléculas del gas alli contendias se le designa con el nombre de “números de Avogadro”." - it doesn't make sense to me to say "The number of molecules is called "Avogadro's numbers""), the third talks about "los diez primeros números de Avogadro" which are presumably nothing to do with the physical Avogadro's number, and the last is Portuguese. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Has this ever been productive in English with the supposed definition "grain-like"? I can only find one word where it has anything to do with grain - mitochondrion - and that seems to be simply an invented Greek word ("thread granule") rather than an example of suffixing. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

RFV of several senses which seem to have been copied or paraphrased from another dictionary, complete with that dictionary's "citations", which are just mentions in other dictionaries and wordlists and not, in most cases, actual uses.

(UK) The ruffe, a small Eurasian freshwater fish (Gymnocephalus cernua); others of its genus. (P)

(UK regional, obsolete) The grain weevil (Sitophilus granarius). (F)

(UK regional) The Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica).

(US regional) The painted bunting (Passerina ciris). (P)

(UK regional) The bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula). (F)

(UK regional, obsolete) The red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio). (F)

The English Dialect Dictionary, which sometimes has pointers to actual uses of words like this, specifies that the "weevil" sense was unknown to its correspondents, and although it has the "bullfinch", "shrike" and "puffin" senses, it offers no leads to actual uses. I tried various searches, like "catch popes" (compare "catch fish"), "red popes" ("red-back shrikes"), popes + weevils, popes + puffins, etc, and didn't see anything relevant. - -sche(discuss) 21:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm also a bit sceptical that the "Guy Fawkes day" sense is really, as currently labelled, US. - -sche(discuss) 21:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

1792, William Augustus Osbaldiston, The British Sportsman, Or, Nobleman, Gentleman and Farmer's Dictionary of Recreation and Amusement, page 176:

Byfleet-river, wherein are very large pikes, jack, and tench ; perch, of eighteen inches long ; good carp, large flounders, bream, roach, dace, gudgeons, popes, large chub, and eels.

1862, Francis T. Buckland, Curiosities of Natural History, page 230:

It resembles the perch (unfortunately for itself) in having a very long and prickly fin on its back, advantage of which is taken by the boys about Windsor, who are very fond of 'plugging a pope.' This operation consists in fixing a bung in the sharp spines on the poor pope's back fin, and then throwing him into the water.

Popes are caught whilst gudgeon-fishing with the red worm, but they are sometimes a great nuisance to the perch-fisher, as they take the minnow.

puffin (no direct citations, but three indirect ones - 1822 shows that it was a common enough word to be crystalized in a toponym, and a check of the OS map shows that the name "Pope's Hole" is official and still current, so it must have had some serious use):

1822, George Woodley, A view of the present state of the Scilly Islands, page 264-5:

"About a hundred yards further North" says Troutbeck, "is a 'subterraneous' cavern called the Pope's Hole, about fifty fathoms under the ground, into which the sea flows, so called from a sort of bird which roosts in it by night, about ninety feet high above the level of the water."!! [...] It derives its name from its being a place of shelter to some puffins, vulgo "popes".

1864, Charles Issac Elton, Norway: The Road and the Fell, page 94:

The Norsemen catch great numbers of these popes, parrots, or lunder, as they are variously named, and train dogs to go into the holes where the puffin has its nest, lying in it with feet in the air.

I was informed by a fisherman that there were now hundreds of gannets in the channel off Plymouth, and that he had also met with some puffins (which he called "popes") [Technically, a mention, but it's quoting speech]

1771, M. Bossu, Travels Through that Part of North America Formerly Called Louisiana, Volume 1, page 371:

The Pope is of a bright blue round the head ; on the throat it is of a fine red, and on the back of a gold green colour, it sings very finely and is the size of a canary bird.

1806, Berquin-Duvallon, Travels in Louisiana and the Floridas, in the Year, 1802: Giving a Correct Picture of Those Countries, page 122:

The birds [of Louisiana] are the partridge, cardinal and pope, and a species of mocking bird, called the nightingale.

1821 Édouard de Montulé, A Voyage to North America, and the West Indies in 1817, page 54:

[...] some others, such as the crow, the heron, and the wild goose, which are found in Europe, I also observed ; but the most beautiful are the pope bird, whose head seems bound with the most bright azure blue, and the cardinal, being entirely of dazzling scarlet [...]

SIR,—I should be glad to learn how to treat Pope birds (Crestless Cardinals) when nesting.

1898, The Avicultural Magazine, Volume 4, page 87:

Besides the Bicheno's Finches in this Class, the judge disqualified, in other Classes, a pair of Magpie Mannikins and a pair of Popes. These entries were presumably all disqualified on the ground that they were not true pairs: they are all birds in which the outward differences between the sexes (if there be any outward difference at all) are of an extremely slight and uncertain nature

1956, Foreign birds for cage and aviary, Volume 4, page 20:

The wisest plan is always to keep the Pope Cardinal in an aviary, and to have only one pair to each aviary.

The "ruffe" and "bunting" citations are great! The "puffin" citations are iffy. The "weevil" and "bullfinch" citations in the entry continue to be mentions, but your Dorset church record looks like a good citation of it — though it's amusing they bothered to write out all three spellings. Great job finding that "cardinal" sense! Ha, it's as if the bird got a promotion: it was a cardinal, now it's a pope. - -sche(discuss) 01:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Two more citations for pope as puffin, slightly better than the ones we have above. I personally think the sense is cited now (these two, plus the "Pope's Hole" quote and possibly the quote of fisherman show actual use).

1759, "Linnæus's Systema Naturæ", The Gentleman's Magazine, page 456:

Alca genus; 6 species, including the razorbill, the penguin, the pope, and others.

The Pope: This is a very singular bird; it is about the size of our widgeon, or somewhat larger, but is not quite so large as the duck: the head is large and rounded; the eyes are small, and stand forward on the head, and lower down than in the generality of birds [...]

No luck on the other senses - having checked the OED, they cite the same dictionaries we do. Incidentally, it looks like the "Pope's Day" sense is indeed American - the OED gives two citations, one from the diary of John Adams and one from the Boston Chronicle. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The "midst" sense is easily attested. Two cites are in the entry and a third will be trivial to find (though I haven't time to find and format one now). That sense cannot fail. (Note though that the headword line is incorrect: the vowelization there currently is of the construct form. I'll fix that imminently.) The others I've never heard of, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. I suspect tha "drum" sense is a confusion with תוף.​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've converted the RFV to an RFV-sense of the last two senses. (The first sense passes with two citations in the entry and more available to anyone who searches the text of e.g. the Hebrew scriptures on Wikisource.) - -sche(discuss) 06:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Allegedly a Turkish word for pearl. Tagged but never listed. Has some things which are claimed to be Turkish citations using this word in this sense, but in the past it's been noticed that (most but not all!) of the time, such citations are actually Azeri or Turkmen. - -sche(discuss) 23:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

RFV of adjective sense 3. (Other senses may be RFVed later.) As far as I can tell, it would be a departure from previous practice to have sense-lines (especially ones consisting of more than {{only in}}) for parts of the proper names of works, even if we weren't talking about transliterations. For example, we don't and shouldn't have an English entry for Mein (or mein), or Soyuz or soyuz, based on instances of people mentioning Mein Kampf and Soyuz nerushimy in English; we don't even have an English (or German/Russian) entry for either full title. Hence, the one citation currently under the RFVed sense, if it is using any English term at all, seems to be using Mahā Bhārata, not mahā. But it is italicized as if it were not English at all, but only a transliteration of the Sanskrit title — compare google books:Zhonghua renmin gongheguo xianfa — so seems useful it see if it can be cited in English at all before beginning an RFD. (Otherwise, someone at RFD would say "shouldn't this be at RFV first to see if it's attested?") - -sche(discuss) 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Our current entry for Mahā Bhārata defines the term as "Alternative spelling of Mahabharata", and our entry for Mahabharata defines the term as "A Sanskrit epic concerning some text of Bhagavad Gita plus elaborations on theology and morality". None of that provides the reader with any guidance when they come across "mahā" and decide to look it up here. bd2412T 22:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

[74] - There are 3 cites for the specified definition, take it to RFD if you dispute inclusion in the first place. It's pointless to discuss the far-fetched and disanalogous parallels with mein and soyuz here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, Soyuz in particularly is directly analogous. - -sche(discuss) 22:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

soyuz is a standalone word so it can't be analogous. soyuz also doesn't appear in hundreds of compounds (or phrases), and it's not a result of people mistakenly spelling it on its own just because it's phonetically a single word, as is the case with maha. Fundamentally there is no difference between it and ordinary English affixes, and the opposition seems to stem from the fact that the former only admits Sanskrit basewords. Since we have entries on English affixes with as little as 2-3 derivations, with maha having hundreds it surely deserves its entry. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ivan, the two citations you recently added were both illustrations of the term [[maha]], not [[mahā]], and I have therefore removed them. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ivan, I see that you've just reverted my removal. Rather than edit warring, I rebut below:

I understand that [[maha]] and [[mahā]] are related. However, citations showing use of [[maha]] do not suffice as evidence for [[mahā]] as an English term.

Both of your added citations also don't show use of [[mahā]] as an individual term, but only as part of larger compounds. We already have an entry for maharaja, and I would argue that maha raja (regardless of capitalization) is an alternate form of maharaja and not an example of [[mahā]] as an independent English term.

Your usage note still makes no real sense, and is incorrect in characterizing Sanskrit [[mahā]] as having no independent meaning.

It's an alternative form, and citations are valid for the normalized spelling as well. It's the same word.

It's an independent term by the virtue of being demarcated with whitespace. It how the notion of "word" is defined.

mahā is not a lexical word in Sanskrit and has no meaning. The usage note is correct, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it makes no sense. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

On the first point, I was under the impression that separate spellings are treated here on the EN WT as separate entries. As such, [[maha]] and [[mahā]] are separate. Could any third party chime in with clarification?

On the second point, I'm not arguing that [[maha]] is not a word. I'm arguing that [[maha]] as illustrated by the compound term [[maha raja]], as an alternate form of [[maharaja]], is not an independent usage of [[maha]] as an English word.

Per your last point, care to explain the महा (mahā) entry, then? inter- is not a lexical word in English either, but it definitely has a meaning. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A 1779 citation for maha encompasses both modern maha and mahā, since at that time there was no way to make a typographic distinction between the the two. Today when you write mahā it's a choice. So a 1779 citation for maha is a proper citation for mahā as well.

What is an "independent word" ? The definition line for the third sense states that it carries no inherent meaning. It can't be classified as an affix either, so it's best left as an adjective.

I suggest that you read the entry on महा (mahā). It says that it doesn't mean anything. That word never occurs in that form on its own so that entry can be safely deleted. Sanskrit has formalized rules of compounding so any word can have a bunch of such "combining forms". inter- doesn't have a meaning either. It modified the meaning of the baseword, but it has no meaning of its own. That's why all of the affixes have non-gloss definitions. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If महा (mahā) doesn't mean anything, then perhaps mahā as used in at least some English texts appears to have been given a meaning by those writers beyond its Sanskrit origins. bd2412T 04:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As it is explained in the usage notes, it's usage as a separate word in English in the third sense is due to the fact that it's phonetically a separate word. In Sanskrit compounds as a rule have a single accent. Modern usage dictates a single-word spelling for all Sanskrit compounds. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I already read the महा (mahā) entry. The महा (mahā) entry does not say that it has no meaning. The lack of a gloss on the definition line is not a positive statement that the term has no definition. Clicking through to महत् (mahat) further explains that महा (mahā) is the combining form of महत् (mahat), i.e. it has the same definition(s) as महत् (mahat), albeit a different lexical role.

Ivan, I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me, or if you're bending the logic of your argument, or if you and I just have profoundly different understandings of Wiktionary. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The entry says that it's a combining form of another word, it doesn't provide any definition. On Wiktionary only words without meanings lack definitions, excepting alt-form redirects and non-lemma entries. महा never occurs on its own (in terms of "separated with whitespace in writing", or "pronounced separately when speaking") in that form. It's not a word in Sanskrit. Sanskrit compounding forms are not like inter- and other affixes in English and other languages - basically every single word can have a bunch of these forms depending on word sandhi.

The definition line of inter- is now encapsulated with {{n-g}}. Even in this form it's deficient because inter- does not mean among, between, amid, during, since these all are not lexical words either. It should be something along "Prefix used to form nouns and adjectives indicating this-and-that type of relationship, corresponding to the usage of prepositions among, between, amid etc.".

Now suppose that all of those derivations with inter- where overwhelmingly written separately, as inter governmental or inter state, until relatively recently (C20), and admitted only stems of Latin origin. Would it be justifiable to have a separate entry on inter? This is such a case. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Eirikr, you are correct that different spellings are treated as different entries, and citations of maha do not verify mahā. Iff they are not invalidated by other factors such as italics, or being mentions rather than uses, etc, citations of maha verify maha. Macrons have been in use for hundreds of years, so Ivan, your assertion that there was historically no way to make a typographic distinction between maha and mahā is simply mistaken. I agree with Eirikr's comments of 00:51, 7 February 2015, including that maha raja is an alternative form of maharaja, not a use of *maha#English + *raja#English. (Does anyone other than Ivan feel otherwise?) - -sche(discuss) 03:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A reader coming across the phrase maha raja is likely to see these as two separate words, and will (correctly) conclude that "maha" and "raja" each contribute some different meaning to the whole phrase. This is particularly so if the same reader also sees phrases like maha bharata or maha yogi. Of course, the same applies for examples of each of these phrases using mahā. bd2412T 04:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, a reader will likely conclude that each discrete space-delimited string of characters conveys some discrete unit of meaning. However, does the maha in [[maha raja]] parse as English? Would the reader infer that they can then refer to a maha deal, a maha examination, a maha big mess, and expect other English readers to understand? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

How is maha in maha raja any less English than inter in international ? Answer: none of these are English. But it's a separate word, spelled separately for a reason that it is pronounced separately, reflecting what is now an obsolete orthographical practice. People will look up raja, see that it means something, and they will look up maha, and won't find anything (relevant). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It is my position that a citation of "maha" does not attest "mahā"; the two are different spellings, to be attested separately. In this I support -sche and Eirikr. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A third quote for the mahā spelling has been added. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Maha Purusha is not the name of a movie in that particular citation (note the date), but an anglicized spelling for the Sanskrit term mahā-puruṣa. mahā is a word by the virtue of being separated with whitespace. I'm still waiting for your definition of independent term. It's not a lexical word, but the definition line for mahā doesn't even claim that it is. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated that [[mahā]] ever appears in an English text in a way that is 1) not an untranslated term used as code-switching in a text targeted at readers likely familiar with Sanskrit, Pali, etc.; 2) not part of a compound term that has been used as an integral whole in a way where [[mahā]] has no clearly independent meaning in English; 3) actually used as English, such as with English modifiers like more or less, and where [[mahā]] is used to modify a common English term. None of your examples serve as adequate evidence that [[mahā]] is being used as English.

I am perfectly happy for EN WT to have an entry at [[mahā]]. Given the evidence to date, I am strongly opposed to any [[mahā]] entry that lists [[mahā]] as an English term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not supposed to demonstrate anything of that because the definition line for the third meaning doesn't require it. Whether it should be kept or not is a different matter (for RFD). Note also that there are sufficiently large number of attestations for English of both X and maha X forms (e.g. maha raja and maha purusha mentioned in this very discussion), which is arguably in favor of the claim that maha is in fact a native English adjective used within these constructs meaning "great", but that is already covered by the preceding definitions, and precluded by our knowledge of the origin of such constructs (direct borrowings from sa). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Limiting discussion just to the third sense (which I admit I was not doing -- I was still writing in reference to the entire English entry for [[mahā]]), there are currently five citations listed. These five are, in order:

Invalid: part of the untranslated title of a literary work (the w:Mahabharata).

Invalid: apparently part of a proper noun (Mahā Purusha), and also clearly delineated in a way to indicate use of an untranslated non-English term (italicized). This is also the only appearance of this term in the entire cited book.

Invalid: code switching in a text targeted at an audience already familiar with various Sanskrit and/or Pali terminology, and also clearly delineated in a way to indicate use of an untranslated non-English term (underlined). If Google Books is to be believed, the word [[mahā]] appears six times in this book, and only as part of the compound term mahā mudrā.

Analysis indicates that none of the provided citations are valid or sufficient to illustrate use of this term, with this particular sense, as English. Delete.

Once we are done beating this dead horse, I would like to nominate the entire English entry for RFV / RFD. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

mahā and maha are the same words in English. The difference is in a macron which is not a part of the English alphabet.

Sanskrit words used in English are not "untranslated" Sanskrit words. They are English words.

The frequency by which a term appears in a work is irrelevant for the purposes of a single attestation. Yes it's a part of the noun (there is no concept of a proper noun in Sanskrit) - but it's spelled and pronounced as a separate word in English, which is not the case in the Sanskrit original. That is both explained in the definition line and the usage note. I'm glad that you've reached that conclusion on your own.

This is not code switching. These are not snippets of Sanskrit used in English. Those are ordinary English words fitting into English syntactical structure. They are used as objects, qualified with articles, pluralized and so on. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Input needed

This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Could anyone else chime in? I feel like Ivan and I are going in circles. More discussion also at [[Talk:mahā]].

Specific issues that I'm hoping others can help address:

Can examples of Spelling A be used as attestations of Spelling B? In this case, are quotes containing maha sufficient to attest the term mahā?

From my reading of past discussions about citations, I arrived at the understanding that citations must demonstrate use of the relevant word with exactly the same spelling. As such, attestations of ate cannot be used to verify the existence of et. Users -sche and Dan Polansky seem to agree with my position, that any citations used to verify the existence of mahā must use the same spelling, diacritics and all.

Are terms that are clearly set off in a text (using italics, reverse italics, bold, quotes, etc.) sufficient to demonstrate the non-foreign-ness of that term?

Other discussions suggest that italics and the like are used by authors to indicate the non-nativeness of a term. Ivan above clearly disagrees.

Are uses in transliterated titles and names sufficient for attestation?

Two of the citations at [[mahā]] appear to be titles, one the title of a literary work, the other a personal epithet.

There are other issues at hand as well, but for starters, I would appreciate input on the above two points.

"foreign-ness" and "non-nativeness" (whatever that means) is not a criteria to exclude words. The criteria is usage in English. The problem is that you don't define usage on semantic grounds (i.e. words being used in their meaning alongside other English words to contruct a complete English sentence), but on how they are formatted and where do they originate form. All of these are irrelevant points. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: There is no entry at maha reflecting the senses reported at mahā. It is quite likely that citations supporting additions of those senses to maha could be found, given the usage of the less convenient diacritic form. bd2412T 04:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The spelling with the diacritic is the more proper one, and that's where the senses and citations should be located. The only exceptions should be relatively common terms (e.g. Shiva not Śiva). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As for transliterated titles (of literary works and such), my position is that "... are the two great epics, the "Rāmāyana" and the Mahā Bhārata" is not an attestation of "mahā" as an English word conveying meaning, and should be removed from mahā page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

But it's not even defined as a lexical word with a meaning. It's definition is surrounded with the {{n-g}} template. Having a meaning is not a criteria for inclusion, otherwise we wouldn't have entries on affixes, prepositions and so on. Furthermore, it's a part of the title only in that specific citation by sheer coincidence - in others it is not. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I recently heard a pundit on a news talk show use it to describe Putins regime. I notice some webpages are using the word kratocratic. Perhaps, someone with better search skills can take a shot at it! WritersCramp (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The definition seems wrong. The word gets exactly three English-language hits in BGC, but to me they seem to mean "bilingual speaker of English and French". Even that usage is questionable as the word is either followed by a question mark or is between brackets or quotation marks. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to find three uses of any single English sense. If any French-speaking editors have the inclination, though, I think there are enough Google Books, Google Groups, and Google Scholar hits to support at least one French sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I just changed this to alternative form of 襤褸, but the only dictionary that lists this 藍褸 form is JMdict, and other Japanese dictionaries only give 襤褸 (which is the standard form used in Japanese). (additional note: the same thing happened with JMdict on the entry for 鼾睡, which was previously 鼾酔, a form again only listed in JMdict, until Eirikr moved it to the correct form) Nibiko (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed in the past that JMdict and KANJIDIC (possibly the same datasets?) have occasionally included mistakes, so I always take their information with a grain of salt. When a purported kanji spelling and the meaning diverge substantially, as was the case with 鼾酔, my eyebrows rise. (FWIW, the JA term kansui spelled with the first character as 鼾 (kan, “snoring”) is listed as meaning "to sleep while snoring". The spelling 鼾睡 expresses that meaning. The JMdict spelling 鼾酔, meanwhile, is listed as meaning just "snoring", but the meaning inherent in the spelling is more like "drunken snorning; to be drunk while snoring".)

The Kokugo Dai Jiten (KDJ) from Shogakukan is pretty good about listing even rare and obsolete terms and alternative spellings, so if a spelling is missing from the KDJ, I become suspicious. When a given spelling doesn't even appear in use in a Google search (zero hits for "鼾酔は", which seems highly suspect; moreover, all given hits for just "鼾酔" seem to be JMdict echoes), I start to think that JMdict made another mistake.

Looking at 藍褸, this appears to be yet another JMdict mistake. This compound's spelling inherently means "indigo + tattered". Japanese ぼろ (boro) means "rag; ragged, threadbare, raggedy", so the 藍 (“indigo”) spelling seems very odd. The normal kanji spelling for boro is 襤褸, and this spelling is literally "threadbare + tattered", which makes much more sense for the meaning of the term boro.

A quick Google search for google:"藍褸"+"は" seems to find 4110 hits, collapsing to just 132 if you try to page through, and all of these appear to be JMdict echoes. Searching for google books:"藍褸"+"は" seems to generate 117 hits, collapsing to 47, but all of the hits I've looked at are presented at best in "Snippet View" based on OCR. I strongly suspect that these are scannos, especially given the jumbled nature of many of the excerpts shown by Google.

藍褸 seems a rare alternate spelling of 襤褸, though I have never seen it: [75], [76]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I too have never seen this. The links you include, however, also suggest the possibility of simple scannos -- where OCR has misinterpreted the text and used the wrong character.

Can anyone confirm whether this spelling actually happens in the real world? Or is this purely an artifact of inadequate technology? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is an alternative spelling mostly for Chinese. “漢字典”（Kanjiten, 2002, Akira Owada [et al.], Tōkyō: Ōbunsha. ISBN 4-01-072118-9）, a paper dictionary dedicated to reading Old Chinese, contains this entry as a synonym of 襤褸 although their are all represented in on'yomi, ランル. It has even another alternative spelling, 藍蔞. Judging from the element, I personally hesitate to put 藍褸 as Japanese lemma. Furthermore, I usually write this word mostly in hiragana (ぼろ) or katakana (ボロ). --エリック・キィ (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest to include it as an obsolete alternative spelling in Japanese, perhaps adding that it was primarily used in the context of sinology. Daijiten (1934-1936) and Jigen (1923) list it explicitly as an alternate spelling. Jigen further explains in the entry for 藍 that "襤は古、藍に通ず" ("襤 traditionally leads to 藍"). It should be noted that in this context Jigen probably means ancient Chinese by "traditionally", though. There is what looks like a non-scanno use in Japanese in 狩野直喜『支那學文藪』(1927), p.295 (at the fifth line from the right): "一方より見れば彼が斯學に於ける篳路藍褸の功はその人格によってこれを沒することは出來ぬ。" The work itself seems to be about sinology, in line with エリック・キィ's comment above. Another is in 青柳綱太郎『鮮人の記せる豊太閤征韓戦記』(1912) (...): "藍褸の狀は、反つて平凉子を戴くが如くならず". That said, I'm with others about the (lack of) current usage. I had never seen the spelling before and for me 襤 and 藍 are totally different except for the shared on'yomi pronunciation (ran). By the way, we should probably remove boro and add ranru as for the pronunciation of 藍褸 unless the former reading is attested. So far all we have found about the spelling is read ranru not boro, unlike 襤褸 which should have both. Whym (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

RFV of etymology 2, the noun meaning "victory". The sense had three citations, but one was from a website, one (moved to the talk page) seems to be of the Old English word, mentioned in quotation marks, and the third is of "Sig rune" as a proper name of this rune. (Diana Paxson uses "sig" in compounds a lot, e.g. "word-sig", "work-sig", "sig-galdor", "sig-rod", but it's not clear to me that it means "victory" rather than the rune in these compounds.) Incidentally, that sense — sig as one of the names of the 's' rune — is probably citable in both uppercase and lowercase, as are most of the rune names (ansuz, etc), though we don't currently have entries for them that I've found. - -sche(discuss) 20:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Basque sense. Trask's Historical Linguistics, page 558[77] says that French Basque has krokodila and Spanish Basque has kokodilo and that krokodilo is the Academy form used by no one. Since Basque is a well-documented language, it needs actual use to stay.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: The family of diseases marked by this stage of fungus development on a plant.

I originally added this sense more than five years ago, but I cannot find the evidence on which I presumably based this definition. I have not found the definition at Aecidium at OneLook Dictionary Search or at Century 1911. If it were wrongly deleted, users would still find the causative agent and reference to more common names for diseases caused by the organisms of the form genus. DCDuringTALK 19:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

(not tagged) I have added two plurals (no entries yet); I think both forms may be acceptable and verifiable. By the way, cup finals occur in other countries as well, such as Norway (cupfinale), so they're not peculiar to Britain. Donnanz (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No response, so either no one cares, or the plurals are OK. I will make entries for them. Donnanz (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If you tagged this on February 16 2015, it can be deleted as uncited in a month. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The plurals are now done. If anyone wants to query this they should know what to do. Donnanz (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of fact-twisting in that statement. It wasn't nominated for deletion. Donnanz (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No facts were twisted- by posting an entry here, you're, in effect, nominating it (conditionally) for deletion. RM apparently decided to take you at your word in order to get you to pay attention. Since you don't seem to want to scroll up to read the header, I'll quote the first paragraph here:

Overview: Requests for verification is a page for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in CFI, usually by providing three citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic AKA sum of parts should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

Since you seem to have very little clue about the function of the various pages:

Tea room: Used for discussion of entries. This seems to be where this item really belongs

Requests for cleanup: Used to request help in fixing problems with an entry, or in solving problems involving multiple entries.

Etymology scriptorium: Used to request help or information regarding etymologies. This is also the best place to ask about proto-language entries in the appendices, since they're really a sort of extension of the etymologies.

Requests for verification: Used when you want to delete an entry or remove a sense because you don't believe it's attested in the language in question or it's not attested with the meaning in question. Also used when you don't believe that existing usage meets the requirements in WT:BRAND or WT:FICTION. Occasionally used when someone wants to determine something about the term or sense by examining the patterns of usage (this is technically misuse of rfv, but it's accepted because it's the best place for asking such questions). The common thread is, you want to verify something about usage, and delete the item in question if its usage doesn't measure up.

Requests for deletion: Used when you want to delete an entry or remove a sense for reasons that have nothing to do with usage.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits: Used when you want to redistribute content without removing it. It may result in the deletion of redundant entries that are merged, but that's not its primary purpose. It's also used for questions of merging, splitting and/or renaming languages/language codes, which is a holdover from the days when each language code had its own template. We should probably come up with a dedicated page with an appropriate name, but nobody has thought of a good one.

Grease pit: Used to ask about technical issues, bugs, etc. Also used to ask for help from people with bots or with the ability to extract information from the XML dumps.

Vandalism in progress: Used to bring vandalism to the attention of admins, and to ask for help in dealing with spammers, vandals, and other users who are causing serious problems.

Beer parlour: Used for general discussion or for discussing matters of policy.

I hope this will help you to avoid using the wrong pages in the future. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, RM is not admin, and should not be allowed to decide whether an RFV fails or passes. In future, where possible, I will do things myself without referral to RFV. Donnanz (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, one doesn't have to be an admin to close rfd's and rfv's. Purplebackpack89 closes them all the time, and he's not an admin, either. Of course, an admin still has to do the actual deletion when an entry fails, but someone always does. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I would put PBP a few rungs further up the ladder in comparison. Donnanz (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added two senses that I could understand that seem to fit both other dictionaries' definitions and the usage I found. But there is some, sparse usage that I can't make much sense of. Perhaps these senses fit that usage. DCDuringTALK 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Created by Luciferwildcat, who was notorious for bad entries. Very little (in terms of actual usage) to be found in Google Books and Groups. Equinox◑ 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This word is extremely crude. I have no problem with this word being removed. Tharthan (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's Luciferwildcat for you: he evidently decided to specialize in adding terms everyone else found too disgusting to deal with. The problem is that he didn't really care if the stuff he came up with was in actual use, and had no sense at all when it came to lexicology. He was very prolific, and probably has more deleted entries to his name than just about anyone else in the history of Wiktionary (though WF has quite a few, too). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Cited (just barely) under the existing sense. There's a couple of other senses (penis viewed in relation to fellatio, and general term of abuse) which I'll also attempt to cite. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Supposed to explain constructions like beersicle and cumsicle, but in that case where does the s come from? Surely these are blends with popsicle, and this is not a true suffix. Equinox◑ 00:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is what comes of not discouraging ahistorical morphological pseudo-etymologies when there is a historical record.

The problem starts with the entry for popsicle. There was no pre-existing -icle suffix. The term was coined as a trademark, a development of the original "Epsicle" (a blend of inventor Epperson's last name and icicle [spelling following the sound, not the orthography]). w:Popsicle (brand) has the story, which looks reasonably well researched. Popsicle would seem to be a blend of (soda) pop and Epsicle.

I think the blend view for beersicle is good, but would-be contributors like to have entries like -icle to fit their concept of how terms develop. The situation is somewhat analogous to the persistent pressure to include collocations as if they were idioms, no matter how transparent. DCDuringTALK 01:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

An arguably transparent collocation is much less damaging to the dictionary than an incorrect interpretation of a suffix. It is abundantly clear that "-sicle", not "-icle", is used to create words (in addition to the foregoing, dogsicle and dicksicle appear attestable). I have yet to find a word formed by adding just "-icle". Of course, not all suffixes are handed down from antiquity (see -zilla, -a-palooza, -punk). bd2412T 04:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And nonetheless, no one has acted to reverse the numerous erroneous "equivalent to" morphologies and hard-coded "suffixed by" categorizations. DCDuringTALK 06:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: The word snoticle is clearly not from the popsicle root (see here if you don't know what it is) and must be formed from comparison with icicle. I'm pretty sure the word is current, I've heard it on at least two documentaries now, but off-hand couldn't find acceptable cites to create an entry. SpinningSpark 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

For all I know, "snoticle" may be formed from comparison with testicle. bd2412T 20:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The first thing to do would be to create an entry for snoticle with attestation, especially early use. DCDuringTALK 20:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course it isn't formed from testicle, that's obviously a load of balls. You criticise me for saying this is obvious, yet you are quite happy to say it is "abundandly clear" on the "-sicle" ending with equally little evidence. SpinningSpark 00:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

At some point it might be that there are a sufficient number of instances of productive use of -icle that cannot be readily explained by any of the -(i}culus ("diminutive"), the icicle, or the popsicle theories. IMO that would not require full attestation of each instance, rather three or more instance of such productive use, possibly each with a single citation (from a durably archived source. Maybe none of the theories advanced fit snoticle, ie, if it isn't sucked on, it isn't cold, and it isn't "small". DCDuringTALK 02:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear -- I was suggesting that -icle might ultimately derive from -(i)culus, not that it *is* -(i)culus.

I was about to suggest that brinicle, rusticle, and snoticle together may provide evidence that should leads us to believe that -icle is becoming productive in a community of natural scientists. Brinicles are frozen, but the others are not. DCDuringTALK 02:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether any of these derive from barnacle, merely by pronunciation. bd2412T 14:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this shows sufficient evidence to demonstrate productivity as a distinct suffix. The attestable term rusticle and the other terms snoticle and limicle cannot be explained as blends of popsicle or icicle as they lack both the semantics and the phonetics. Greasicle is also likely due to the meaning though phonetics seem ambiguous. Brinicle is possible phonetically, but is at least ambiguous semantically. None of these can be plausibly explained semantically as derived from -culus as the semantics are wrong. DCDuringTALK 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

To further demonstrate productivity one could add the numerous instances at Urban Dictionary of terms ending in -icle, most of which have lost the "s" sound and some of which are semantically remote from icicle and popsicle, though many are not. DCDuringTALK 15:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the answer is that it started out as a blend, but was reanalyzed as stem + suffix when people started trying to coin similar words. It looks to me like most of the stem + suffix coinages used -sicle, but occasionally someone would reanalyze things again as stem + -icle. The reanalyses obliterate the true etymological origins of the class as a whole, but in my opinion they're valid for the new coinages. In the cases at hand, though, the stem + -icle ones are simply wrong- they don't account for the extra "s". I think what we need is the correct etymology at popsicle, as DC During laid it out for us, stem + -sicle for everything that has an "s" sound in the appropriate place, and stem + -icle for the one or two exceptions that don't have the "s" sound there and can't be explained as blends. That means we don't delete anything, but we redo most of the etymologies so that Category:English words suffixed with -icle loses most of its members to Category:English words suffixed with -sicle and Category:English blends (or maybe all, until someone verifies whatever rare exceptions there are out there). At any rate, this probably should have been at rfd or maybe rfc, since we all agree that the compounds exist, but most of us disagree with the way they're analyzed in the etymologies. After all, it's kind of hard to verify which suffix is used by looking at running English text. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that "popsicle" is "sodapop" + -sicle. I would reckon that it is unfortunately "lollipop" + -sicle. Tharthan (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly possible and might be the better choice. I read that the inventor came up with the idea from observing frozen soda pop with a stirrer or something left in the glass, but the role of the inventor's children leaves other possibilities. DCDuringTALK 15:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

In agreement that we're dealing with two separate suffixes with two separate (but connected) etymologies: -icle, from icicle, and -sicle, from Popsicle. The former seems to be used mainly to construct words for things which dangle like an icicle, the latter mainly to construct words for things which in some way resemble a popsicle, i.e. being frozen or lickable. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good. So "limicle" does exist? I'll have to mark that down in my list of native words and remember to use that instead of stalactite in the future. Thanks Smurrayinchester. Tharthan (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudcuckoolander: If a term ending in icle has no immediately preceding "s" sound, is not plausibly a diminutive semantically, and is neither frozen nor to be sucked, and doesn't hang straight down like an icicle, then the evidence says it may well be considered to terminate in a suffix -icle. If it retains the connections phonetically ("s") or semantically with either with icicle ("frozen") or popsicle ("to be sucked") then the arguments are not so strong. -icle seems to have an etymology that includes (perhaps "influenced by") -culus("diminutive").

It seems likely that -icle will come to seem like a true suffix rather than the result of a blend in more cases as popsicle diminishes in import for a larger share of English speakers (India ?), but I don't think it is there yet. DCDuringTALK 21:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the etymology for ickle, the source of the -icle in icicle, I'm amused to see that this derives “from Proto-Germanic*jikilaz, *jekulaz (“piece of ice”), diminutive of Proto-Germanic*jekô (“lump of ice”)” -- suggesting a clear parallel between Latin diminutive -(cu)lus and Proto-Germanic *-(ku|ki)laz. (I see that the Latin term has no etymology, so I've just added an RFE to the underlying Latin lemma at -lus.) Does anyone know if these are cognates from a common root, or was one borrowed from the other? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

DCDuring the Proto-Germanic diminutive attached to icicle's etymon is not based upon or influenced by Latin's diminutive suffix, but is rather cognate to it. Not the same thing. Tharthan (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I was limiting myself to what I view as a possibly valid suffix used in the the very few terms ending in -icle that actually seem not to be derived by blending or from the Latin diminutive. That suffix, mostly used by natural scientists, might be influenced by the medical, scientific, and technical terms ending in -icle that are from Latin terms ending in -(c(u))lus. DCDuringTALK 03:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But who is to say that "-icle" hasn't been (in the minds of many) a hypothetical suffix meaning "(frozen) thing that hangs like an icicle", i.e. aforementioned limicle, rusticle, brinicle etc.? It may well be, yes. Tharthan (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A rusticle, limicle, or snoticle is not frozen. (A brinicle, OTOH, is.) I was looking for a subset of use that did not have the "s" sound and was somewhat remote semantically from icicle and popsicle. There are at least these three. Just about everything else is arguably still a blend of something with icicle, popsicle, or particle, if not a derivative of a Latin term ending is (c(u))lus. DCDuringTALK 04:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hence why I put frozen in rounded brackets. It seems much more likely that limicle is a blend of lime(stone) and icicle. Same for brinicle and rusticle. Tharthan (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"The United States dollar (sign: $; code: USD; also abbreviated US$ and referred to as the Dollar, U.S. dollar, American dollar or US Dollar) is the official currency of the United States and its overseas territories. It is a Federal Reserve Note and consists of 100 smaller cent units."

Prescriptively speaking, it shouldn't be capitalized, because currency names aren't capitalized in English (compare pound, yen, euro, etc.). That doesn't mean it descriptively never is capitalized, though; if attestable it could conceivably be called an {{alternative case form of}}dollar. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be capitalized when used as an alleged object of worship: the Almighty Dollar. DCDuringTALK 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It follows the general capitalization rules: capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, when it's personalized, etc. There is no need for a definition. Lmaltier (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the most common English name for the species is stock dove, in the same way that wild pigeons are referred to often (at least in older sources) as rock doves. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This text has it in reference to an Old English quote, but the Old English quote in question uses "forbisne". It is possible that the author of the text was taking a jab at the Modern English term, which had become quite dated (or perhaps already archaic by this time). Tharthan (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

google books:"a bytale" turns up nothing, and bare "bytale" turns up nothing obvious, although there were so many scannos of "by tale" that I may have missed something. - -sche(discuss) 22:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't find modern English uses to support any of the senses; only mentions in other dictionaries and wordlists of the phrase "a shame and a bysen", which could potentially support one sense. I have not yet checked any of the many alt spellings we and other dictionaries list (bizon, bisen, byzen, byson, bysson, barzon, bazon, bizzen).
Some hits are scannos of "by sense" and eye dialect of "business", others are mentions of Old English words.- -sche(discuss) 23:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This word most certainly still exists. It is, however, quite rare. Finding attestations to it is even harder, as the Web is cluttered with unrelated material that has to be bumped into before one can find the attestations. Tharthan (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, Eliza Lynn Linton's Lizzie Lorton of Greyrigg (1866)[82] is English and on page 97 does use the word: " […] and a bizen like this." That's one English citation of that spelling. - -sche(discuss) 22:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That's the same one we currently have at mooch ass grassy ass, and I'd argue that it's not a valid citation for either. It's not being used for its meaning, but solely as the punchline to a knock-knock joke:

A very weird one. Certainly widely used on Usenet (more in Danish/Norwegian than English though), although it looks like it simply means "Æ, Ø, and Å" (rather than meaning "special characters" more generally). The hashtag thing also seems to be accurate (these are the tweets tagged #ÆØÅ), but a) I don't know how we could cite that, and b) a hashtag isn't really dictionary material and I can't find any evidence of it being used as an adjective outside tags. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If you search on the letters in other orders, you get the same kinds of hits on Usenet (though far fewer- maybe it's the standard order). It doesn't look like what's defined. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The last three letters in both Danish and Norwegian (that is the correct order), and they all come after Z. I don't know whether this entry is useful or not though. Donnanz (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

None of the usexes suggest that this has any idiomatic meaning. - -sche(discuss) 20:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The page seems to be misspelled. Jucheist (currently a redlink) does get some hits (google books:"jucheist", google books:"jucheists"). I'd suggest simply moving this. (I also don't know how well it fits the category of religions - the Google Books hits are all using it in a political sense, although of course it's hard to differentiate political ideology, cult of personality and religion in a state like North Korea) Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Pitjantjatjara. I think this is a mistaken entry, ngayulu being the term I have encountered as a first person singular nominative pronoun. However, I'm not totally certain, so I'm bringing it here for more of a look. This, that and the other (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A Google Books search suggests that you are correct, bare ngayu is not used. Perhaps someone created it as the root to which the case endings are added (ngayu-lu, ngayu-la, ngayu-nya, ngayu-ku, etc)? - -sche(discuss) 18:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this is Ngaanyatjarra instead, or something like that. In any case, I'll deal with it. This, that and the other (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As a Libertarian (registered in the US political party), I've never seen this form of the acronym before. I've only seen it without the periods. We don't have G.O.P. --WikiWinters (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an acronym, since I doubt anyone would pronounce it as a word rather than as the names of the letters. The person who created the entry lives in England and is notorious for creating entries without any evidence that the terms actually exist, so you're probably right to question it- but searching for the combination of two common individual letters is going to be a nightmare. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a great deal of confusion on that matter among most Americans, and some books do seem to reference this, but I don't think it's a real sense; depends whether you count something like the example on page 144 of Weirdsville USA: The Obsessive Universe of David Lynch by Paul Woods: "Suddenly distracted by a bonsai plant, Gordon mistakes the Japanese war cry ('Banzai!') in WWII movies: 'BONSAI!' he hollers […] ". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Kiwima changed it to a {{misspelling of}} (and I just added the template). I'm fine with that rendering. My remaining question is whether the misspelling belongs under the same etymology heading, since the banzai sense has nothing to do with Middle Chinese bowl + plant. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I searched for this plus army in Google Books and found only one relevant result: Embedded: A Marine Corps Adviser Inside the Iraqi Army by Wesley Gray, which has more of a mention than a use. Equinox◑ 00:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was named after the children's educational dinosaur character. (Ety now added.) If he is used in other phrases ("tell it to me like Barney would"?) then perhaps the entry should be Barney, making this SoP; though this is just an observation. Equinox◑ 16:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I get nothing. Looking at the wider web, google:"mosbied" shows 398 hits, but that collapses down to 98 when paging through them. I don't think this even qualifies for “hot word” status, let alone a regular entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The single Google Books match is an obvious nonce (in quotation marks) and is not even the given sense! Equinox◑ 16:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, User:kc_kennylau has been re-adding rubbish like "heteroromanticness" and "sapioromanticness" in blatant contradiction of WT:CFI. I blocked him for a day so he can actually read the rules. Equinox◑ 02:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

French - Supposed to be the plural of 5à7. Searching for this term is inherently difficult, due to the punctuation marks. Also 5-à-7s, 5@7s, 5 à 7s. Also, I'd guess that 5 à 7 are invariable nouns in French, but I never learned the plural spelling rules for entries composed mostly of numbers and punctuation. I was a letters man myself... --Type56op9 (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

An IP tried to remove the Italian section with the edit comment "please don't be silly: this word DOES NOT EXIST". It may not be the normal or preferred form, but does it actually not exist? I found this, but I don't know this dictionary very well, so I don't know if they include as dialects what we consider to be separate languages, and I hardly speak Italian at all (it's only a mention, anyway). There seem to be Italian Google Books hits, but I'll leave it to others who speak Italian to decide if they're applicable, and whether it merits context tags. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It’s an obsolete spelling, or at least chiefly obsolete. Most post-1950 hits in Google Books are reprints of older books, or are quoting older text. — Ungoliant(falai) 15:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this a trademark? If so, can the entry be marked suitably? Donnanz (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's in the category of stuff like Kleenex and Jell-O that start out as brand names but are now used generically. Also, it's a verb too, the most verifiable form of which is saran-wrap. Purplebackpack89 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that could be determined by rfv is whether it meets WT:BRAND. If it does, then the matter of whether it is/was a trademark should go in the etymology section (etymonline has an entry for Saran, which it says is trademarked). As PBP says, this is probably a w:Generic trademark, which means it's valid dictionary material for us and an unending source of annoyance for Dow Chemical Co.'s intellectual-property people ... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So it's possibly 50% trademark? I haven't got a clue, I don't think it's sold here, and I think it's what we call "cling film". Donnanz (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's listed in the Oxford Dictionary of English (both hard copy and online) as a trademark. Origin: 1940s, of unknown origin. Donnanz (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that ngrams might merely reflect the fact that this product is commonly referred to as a specific trademark, and not in the generic sense required by WT:BRAND. bd2412T 19:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As Chuck Entz says, it's valid dictionary material; if Oxford can list it without any repercussions, so can Wiktionary. Donnanz (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There is ample evidence that it has been genericized, such as saranwrap, use of verbal inflected forms of variant spellings, and attributive use, but not all of the evidence is of the form being RfVed. DCDuringTALK 21:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest making Saran wrap the lemma, with a redirect from saran wrap (and also Saran Wrap if that form meets BRAND). Put a note in the etymology section that it originated as a brand name, if this is the case. (Avoid any other indication of trademark status, since it opens up a can of legal worms; see WT:TRADEMARK.) - -sche(discuss) 22:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oxford uses the same format (Saran Wrap) so it must be widespread. I think this entry should keep the format it has at present. Donnanz (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The trademark can be mentioned in the etymology. Not mentioning it at all is misleading. DCDuringTALK 22:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My position is that Saran Wrap should be the lemma, and that there is no genuine doubt about this being attested per WT:ATTEST. See also Saran Wrap at OneLook Dictionary Search, which finds "Saran Wrap" and "Saran wrap" in oxforddictionaries.com[83] ("Saran Wrap", not OED), Collins[84] ("Saran wrap"), and Macmillan[85] ("Saran Wrap"). Ngram for "Saran wrap", case-insensitive does not provided any conclusive evidence that the occurrences of "Saran Wrap" are not in the genericized use. Looking for attesting quotations supporting WT:BRAND specifically (a policy that I never supported, and for which a rationale has never been presented) is something I feel disinclined to do right now. Also for comparison: (saranwrap*50),Saran Wrap,saran wrap at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in Google Books or Google Groups. Hundreds of instances of "eye. Feel", and also lots of "how does your eye feel?" and "make your eye feel". A handful of eye-dialect/sillyness cases along the lines of "eye feel reel-E bad". Two or three uses referring to feeling in the eye itself. Absolutely nothing that matches the definitions given. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Really. DanKanes (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC) This is a term that was coined to help people rate their experience with new Near-Eye Display Technologies (ex. Oculus and other VR Head sets, Virtual Retinal Displays like Avegant Glyph, Microsoft Hololens, MagicLeap)

Used in a sentence:

"While the Oculus Rift DK2 headset is capable of providing a somewhat immersive experience, the eye-feel is just not compelling."

in another sentence

"The eye-feel of the Avegant "Jellyfish" prototype I tested in the lab the other day was OFF THE SCALE."

Coined by whom? We're a descriptive dictionary, so we only include terms that are already in use- and not just by the people who thought them up. Unless someone comes up with at least three independent examples of use in durably-archived sources, the entry will be deleted. I just tried the two most obvious ways to find such examples, and found nothing. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

rfv-sense: One who is killed or suffers greatly because of an identity or position, e.g., a young prince killed when his father, the king, is deposed for the purpose of preventing the restoration of the monarchy later. We already seem to include this sense at sense #2: One who sacrifices his or her life, station, or something of great personal value, for the sake of principle or to sustain a cause.---> Tooironic (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You sure you want to RfV this? Not RfD it? Purplebackpack89 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I interpret "sacrifice" in sense 2 as conveying that the martyr had some degree of control over what happened to them, e.g. they refused to renounce their views on some matter even though they knew it meant they would be killed. Sense 4 then seems to be distinct (since the son has no control over who his father is). The questions are then (a) is sense 4 attested?, and (b) is it better to have separate senses 2 (and 3) and 4, or to combine some of them? - -sche(discuss) 16:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any harm to including Tumblr neologisms. So long as they're attestable, of course. In fact I think we ought to make more of an effort to include emerging slang and neologisms. Keeping up with linguistic developments increases the utility of the wiki. That said, this doesn't seem citable, and likely never will be. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. To an extent I agree, and I don't want to sound as though I'm saying "exclude it because it's new": I add plenty of "new" words. However, there is some kind of fad epidemic on Tumblr of creating "-romantic" and "-sexual" orientations that have little meaning and zero usage, and I think we need to take care to distinguish such things from legitimate neologisms that people are using in real life (like "selfie" and "tweetstorm"). Equinox◑ 05:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "(pejorative) Discrimination against evaluative diversity through segregation, prejudice, or disregard of people with differing values. "

Both of the citations verify sense 2 (the philosophical position that the difference between worldviews is too fundamental to be resolved by rational argument). This sense suggests some sort of hypernym of sexism, racism etc, which I can't find any citations of. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your paraphrase of sense 2 is not specifically epistemic. Field clarifies that he uses the word with two senses here (you seem to be rolling them into one):

2000, Hartry Field, “A Priority as an Evaluative Notion”, in Paul Boghossian and Christopher Peacocke editors, New essays on the a priori, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199241279, page 142:

One way to press the complaint is to make an unfavourable contrast between evaluativism in epistemology and evaluativism in moral theory.

In the realm of epistemology, evaluativism merely amounts to skepticism of others' beliefs (which is no more harmful than general skepticism), but evaluativism about morals amounts to rejecting others as members of the community of moral agents (and that creates social conflict). To call someone an evaluativist about morals is pejorative, like calling someone sexist or racist; it comes off as an accusation aimed to diminish trust in the accused.

On page 143, Field refers to a certain treatment directed at all Moonies as evaluativist. That's more than just taking a philosophical position--here the epistemic position has bled into a social behavior like religionism. Silversalt (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That citation doesn't provide evidence for two meanings of evaluativism. The rest of the cite makes clear it's about the use of the same philosophical tools, but in different fields of philosophy. The full quote regarding Moonies is:

in dealing with a follower of the the Reverend Moon, we may find that too little is shared for a neutral evaluation of anything to be possible, and we may have no interest in the evaluations that the Moonie gives. The fact that he gives them then provides no impetus whatever to revise our own evaluations, so the sceptical argument has no force from an evaluativist perspective.

Nothing in there suggests that evaluativist means "Person who discriminates on the basis of worldviews". Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is strongly implied that Field does not have a particular Moonie in mind, but is referring to the (then) common practice of shunning all Moonies because of the Moonie worldview. Others might refer to that practice as religionism. Silversalt (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If this fails RFV, whoever deletes it should remember to remove it from the few pages that link to it, and clean up (remove the coordinate terms section of) evaluativist. - -sche(discuss) 02:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

[E]valutivism makes plain that any attempt to justify a rule (ultimately by a rule-circular argument) will be an attempt for rules we value and will depend on rules we value (our basic inferential rules).

There is prima facie something deeply unappealing about evaluativism: our intuitions rebel at the suggestion that reasonableness is 'not a factual property' and that '[i]n calling a rule reasonable we are evaluating it, and all that makes sense to ask about is what we value'.

This is a relatively new technical philosophical term with few examples. We can wait to see whether additional authors use the term to refer to a form of bigotry (it is possible that some other term will be invented and used in its place). However, omitting the second sense (as though all philosophers are using only one sense) may misrepresent the term. For his part, Field seems to refer both to an objective hypothesis about the nature of disagreement, and to a moral stance on how one ought to treat various groups of people (e.g., Moonies). It is logically possible to accept the epistemic hypothesis without endorsing the moral stance. Other authors elaborate on evaluativism less, so it isn't as easy to prove that they conflate the senses, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of the citations on the citation page actually refer to evaluativism in both senses at once. Silversalt (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

According to abax#Usage notes, “The plural form abaxes is currently unattested.”; if that is the case, shouldn't abaxes be deleted?
FWIW, etymology would suggest the plural forms abaces and, perhaps, abakes. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think many English dictionaries went to their Latin, French, or Italian dictionaries, found words that could plausibly be turned into English words, and dispensed with finding any actual usage. I'm doing the same thing with Latin words ending in "bilis", except I'm checking for actual usage, using {{trans-see}} to send would-be translators (and others) to less rare synonyms where they exist, and extirpating the word from any definitions in favor of any less rare synonym. DCDuringTALK 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Etymology 5 (which was Etymology 1 until recently!), which is supposedly modern English, only has two citations - one from 1240 and one from 1340. Did this word (an early form of steal/stealth) survive into modern English, or was it already dead by 1500? Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Msh210 apparently created hundreds of these back in 2007 by more or less systematically hyphenating terms listed as noun phrases and re-entering them as adjectives. Should they be taken to RFV one-by-one? --Hekaheka (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If necessary. They're all nouns, in any case (that's the point of "attributive"!) and need to have their POS headers fixed. - -sche(discuss) 01:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

One of these was deleted, though it took two tries, and it was only because it was unattested: see Talk:alpine-choughChuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they all need RFV but they all need fixing because they're nouns, as the definitions say. 95.144.169.113 21:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The hyphenated attributive form is an adjective, by my lights. But I do not know how to search for it to attest it: google books:"frictional-unemployment" returns occurrences with space instead of hyphen. Anyone has an idea of a search strategy for these hyphenated forms? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in BGC and the Google hits for search "frictional-unemployment" are chiefly for the unhyphenated form. Among 100 first hits there's only one hyphenated form and it is from a web dictionary which copies its content from Wiktionary. Why couldn't mass-created dubious forms be mass-deleted as easily and without consideration as they were born? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This one doesn't seem attested afaIct, and I apologize for creating these en masse without checking for cites first. They are of course plausible terms and I see no cause for deleting them en masse, but this one probably can be deleted. But maybe cites will turn up….​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

How about making them hard redirects en masse? DCDuringTALK 16:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I would speedy delete all of these mass created hyphenated forms that have zero hits on Google Ngram Viewer (GNV), which is easy to decide. frictional-unemployment has zero hits there, just like grey-heron, green-woodpecker, tectonic-uplift, abominable-snowman, abundant-number, accident-blackspot; non-zero GNV hits are found for griffon-vulture, great-tit, sandhill-crane, trumpeter-swan. Thus, I would let non-zero GNV hitters go to normal RFV, and mass delete those that have zero GNV hits. The justification for this extra-RFV measure is that they were created en masse without checking for attestation in the first place (creation visible here), that the tool used for the first filtering is reasonably lenient, and that if we RFV them one at the time, that will be really onerous because of how many they are (see the link just provided). For the speedy deleted items, editors can still place putative attesting quotations into Citations namespace, and start restoring the attested ones, if any. Note that GNV does distinguish terms with hyphens vs. those with space, unlike Google web and Google books search. See frictional-unemployment, grey-heron, green-woodpecker, tectonic-uplift, abominable-snowman, abundant-number, accident-blackspot at Google Ngram Viewer, and griffon-vulture, great-tit, sandhill-crane, trumpeter-swan at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

All three English senses seem unlikely; Lojban borrowings are pretty rare, I should think. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Luckily for us, Lojbaners are pretty much the only people still using usenet besides pirates:

Noun:

I don't think we are in disagreement about anything important here, but there was no malglico involved or suggested.

Lojban is NOT encoded English, and if one gets lazy, one will not be understood (or will be intentionally misunderstood by some people who are literal-minded and don't like malglico).

If you suppose non-English speakers to be readers of the phrasebook, these malglico may be great defects.

Adjective:

Talk of our discussion transpired into #lojban. The consensus is that using tadji is wrong or malglico:

And you still haven't told me what in the statement {.i.u'icai do ze'ipu tavla fo le glibau .i di'u pe do te bangu le glibau} you consider malglico.

"ka'e" was obviously taken from "kakne", yes, but the connection is kind of malglico. Similarly "pe'i" comes from "pensi", "ti'e" from "tirna", and thare are other mnemonics that go through malglico glosses.

Given that it will only ever be used by Lojbaners, it's hard to say whether it's really English, but it's used in English grammar in English ways. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are from Google Groups, not Usenet. — Ungoliant(falai) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Latin, supposedly the genitive feminine plural of ūsuālis, except that it's not (it's ūsuālium). I've added the only Google Books result for this term to Citations:usualarum (where it occurs as „usualarum“ in a German context). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Needs citations showing (a) that it exists at all, and (b) that it exists with the POS claimed, i.e. as an adjective rather than a noun. There are no instances of it in the COCA or BNC, and Google Books hits, even for compounds like "abominable(-| )snowman suit" and "abominable(-| )snowman costume", are unhyphenated. - -sche(discuss) 22:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Needs citations showing (a) that it exists at all, and (b) that it exists with the POS claimed, i.e. as an adjective or "adjective comparative forms" rather than a noun. There are no instances of it in the COCA or BNC, and Google Books hits, even for compounds like "abundant(-| )number sum", "abundant(-| )number factor" and "abundant(-| )number divisor", are unhyphenated or entirely nonexistent. the entry is currently badly formatted, using one thing as the POS header and a different thing on the headword-line, and containing a blank usex. - -sche(discuss) 22:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This form gets no hits in the COCA or BNC. Google Books hits, even for compounds like "accident(-| )blackspot treatment", "programmes", "locations", etc are unhyphenated, and the usex given in the entry, "accident-blackspot signage", gets no hits at all. - -sche(discuss) 22:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: any particle that is not an elementary particle, namely hadrons, atomic nuclei, atoms and molecules. This definition is consistent with en-Wikipedia article List_of_particles#Composite_particles but not with the rest of dictionaries, which are of the opinion that this term refers to subatomic particles [86]][[87]]. The only exceptions that I could find are the dictionaries which cite Wiktionary as source, e.g. [88]. Thus, it appears to me, we should drop anything bigger than atomic nuclei from the list after the word "namely". We might also want to add an entry for composite particle board, because it is not board made of composite particles, but this is another business. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Currently defined as "the hegemonic, global avant-garde style of architecture in which all elements of the design become parametrically variable and mutually adaptive". I had reduced the original def to simply "an avant-garde style of architecture", but the creator restored this longer def. It's hard to tell what "parametrically variable and mutually adaptive" is supposed to mean, and it sounds a bit like art-waffle. Equinox◑ 18:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Parametricism" gets over 600 BGC hits in books written by a variety of authors. A comprehensible definition is much harder to come across. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Side note: most citations seem to use the all-lowercase form, so I've moved the entry there. A few citations do capitalize the term, but the same can be said of impressionism, pointillism, modernism, etc. - -sche(discuss) 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed "hegemonic"; supporters of the movement make the POV claim that it is hegemonic/dominant, but this is the subject of (as one source puts it) "lively debate", and is in any case not definitional. google books:"parametricism" "mutually adaptive" gets no hits, so I've removed that bit, too. The idea that (the functions of) urban spaces are parametrically variable and dynamic rather than static, OTOH, does seem definitional; indeed, it may be part of why the movement is called parametricism (the other part being because it's computer-aided). I've added a few citations. - -sche(discuss) 21:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Daniela has removed "computer-aided" and added "epochal", but that, like "hegemonic", is just another POV claim by the term's creator. - -sche(discuss) 03:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Now we've got five references but all of them are the term's creator talking about himself. Out of hand. Equinox◑ 04:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear, both from what Daniela has removed and from what they've added, that they're pushing a "Parametricism is the Way!" POV. I suggest restoring diff (but fixing the typo of "statis"→"static"). - -sche(discuss) 04:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the entry OK at this point? It's cited. - -sche(discuss) 08:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

RFV-passed in its current form, heavily altered from its original form. - -sche(discuss) 22:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither of the two homonymic prefixes has a single example of its use, even in the ahistorical way that we tolerate. I would like to see some evidence that this has been used productively in English. DCDuringTALK 17:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "wild guess". --Is this common enough to merit inclusion? I mean, we should not record every flippant usage that has ever occurred. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably delete but will see how the discussion goes. Move to RFD. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад) 05:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would position educated guess and wild guess as almost opposites: while both are guesses, one is based on the guesser's past experience and wisdom, and the other is, as it even says in the term itself, wild and not based on much of anything. So listing one as a definition of the other can only be an error. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As it happens, I am currently drafting the Wikipedia article on guessing (hard to believe that there is none after all this time), at w:Draft:Guess. These terms are included in it. bd2412T 16:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete it. A great number of phrases are used in a tongue-in-cheek manner, diverting from the proper sense. Donnanz (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cited. Also rewrote the definition to be more concise and less copyright-infringing. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there any more etymological details available than "coined by some guy"? What was the coinage based on, if anything? Is this in any way related to German sonder? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This is listed as an English verb, but so far I can only find it in cases where the author is clearly using it as a foreign term (it's in italics with a gloss or explanation immediately provided). I also cannot find any instances of this conjugated along English lines, such as google:"tokimekued" (zero hits) or google:"tokimekus" (two hits on Twitter, dupes, and apparently intended to be tokimeku's as the possessive of the noun, used as the name of a word).

One citation, which I suspect might be the result of a bad translation. I've never heard Franco-Provençal called this. All the citations I can find use the term as an adjective meaning ‘from Provence in France’, and the hyphenated form as far as I can tell only occurs in the context of (bilingual) ‘French-Provençal’ dictionaries. Anyone familiar with it? Ƿidsiþ 11:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

French-Provençal is a morpheme-by-morpheme loan-translation of a foreign word (Franco-Provençal) in correctly English. I think we shouldn't consider it as a "bad translation", but as a rare form well conforming with accepted standards of the English language. The hyphen excludes the adjective meaning (‘from Provence in France’), to give the word his own sense. Meanwhile, the alternative form Franco-Provençal (foreign word) is a loanword, directly taken into the English language from French with no translation. Auvé73 (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC).

We can find here on this page a serious article saying: "(...) a linguistic challenge and a cultural operation, as an attempt to test and show all the expressive potential of his French-Provençal". On the more popular platforms, I found this page, where a traveler talks about "(..) an old French Provencal language known as Arpitan.", and this student explains that "(...) Standard French and Arpitan (French-Provencal) are spoken (...)", while a member of this forum tells us that "The French Provencal language (francoprovencal, arpitan, patois) is thought to have originated there and the area contains the largest numbers of speakers of this language". However, the words French-Provençal and Franco-Provençal seems very artificial and misleading, that why the synonym Arpitan seems to be more used nowadays on the internet... Auvé73 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Meh. ‘Franco-Provençal’ is not taken from French, the language name was coined by GI Ascoli (francoprovenzale) and English borrowed it from there. Franco- is a perfectly normal English prefix. Your citations are a bit tepid – the first two are clearly translated, apparently by non-native speakers, the third is from someone completely unfamiliar with the language, the fourth…I guess it's OK…but one cite from an online forum…it's all a bit weak. No published citations? Nothing on Google Books? Ƿidsiþ 16:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, the specific adjectival meaning is not obviously the same as any of the clearly appropriate noun senses. Credit is due to Purp for noticing. Obviously the adjective use is derived from one of the noun senses. It seems a bit a stretch in real life to interpret diet in diet soda as soda for "a controlled dietary regimen".

Some, at least, of the predicate uses confirm this or provide additional support, though capitalized "Diet" in quotes doesn't. DCDuringTALK 16:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's a noun, what's its meaning? There's no noun sense for 'low in sugar or fat'. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I left it here to see if anyone agreed with my first thought. Evidently not. DCDuringTALK 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that three quotations are now in the entry diet, for phrases "diet hamburger" and "diet drink". Among OneLook dictionaries (diet at OneLook Dictionary Search), adjective for "diet" is in Merriam-Webster[93], which has actually two adjectival senses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I did point out to PBP (in the Diet Coke RFD) that it's really a noun modifier. The adjective could quite easily be transferred to the noun as a separate sense and marked as such. Donnanz (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: AFAICT, this is a rare (in print anyway) slur on the bunya/banyan caste of traders. As such it seems SoP in the single independent use I found at Google Books. DCDuringTALK 21:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, you're referring to the term bunya spider used as the entre definition for the sense in question, not the term bunya itself. Google Books has only a single usage for that phrase in different editions and as quoted directly in another work. It looks to me like a one-off metaphorical turn of phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Dutch would-be diminutive. Since diminutives are not inflected forms, they need attestation as words in their own right, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Diminutives are inflected forms in Dutch. Every word can have one, it's fully productive and fully predictable what the diminutive of a given word is. —CodeCat 14:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Every English adjective can in principle have a -ness form, but some -ness forms are unattested and we don't include them. The fact that a morphological derivation process is very regular and predictable does not make it an inflection process. Diminutives are not inflected forms even in Dutch; rather, diminutives themselves are inflected in Dutch. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is a rather dubious practice. Is this a tradition in Dutch dictionaries? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is it a rather dubious practice? —CodeCat 15:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a dubious practice because they are not inflected forms. They are not inflected forms because they are themselves inflected. Is it a tradition of Dutch dictionaries to present diminutives as inflected forms? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You haven't yet established that diminutives are not inflected forms in Dutch. In fact I'm not sure you really know enough about Dutch to judge it. Being inflected themselves is not an argument, compare participles. —CodeCat 15:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The term that has been used for these on Wiktionary is "sublemma". They are lemmas in some ways, like having inflections, but are themselves inflections of another lemma. —CodeCat 15:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
(after edit conflict) It is true that some forms considered by some to be inflected forms can be further inflected. Nonetheless, I would argue that if a form is further inflected, one must present a strong argument for it being an inflected form. Your argument was regularity and productiveness, but these two characteristics cannot serve to distinguish derivational process from inflection; derivational processes are often regular and productive as well. Then I would ask for the third time, is this a tradition in Dutch dictionaries? Can you point me to at least one online Dutch dictionary containing Dutch definitions, so I can check what their practice is?

One more thing. Comparatives and superlatives are forms that can be inflected, and that some might consider to be inflected forms nonetheless. But for these, our practice is to require attestation. I submit that even if diminutives can be seen as some sort of quasi-inflected forms, they should be subject to attestation requirements. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that CodeCat is a native speaker of Dutch, whereas Dan Polansky isn't. Are these diminutives confined to the Netherlands, or they used in Flemish as well? I may be able to find out if I manage to get to Belgium this summer. Donnanz (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker and we've deleted English inflected forms before because they don't exist. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As the creator of this page and thousands of other diminutive Dutch nouns I can mention that most of these words are not in any dictionary for the simple reason that it would make the dictionaries very large. For the same reason many compound words are not in Dutch dictionaries but they are used. Diminutives in Dutch are "made", inflected if you like by the Dutch speakers themselves. Probably nobody ever used the word "aalmoezenierskamertje" but it can be "made": my idea of these words is that if someone would make a small scale model of a military base, the room the chaplain would be in would be called "aalmoezenierskamertje" because it is a small version of "aalmoezenierskamer". The WNT has a section about "the making"of Dutch diminutives, therefore they can exist. I am, as CodeCat is, a native speaker of Dutch. --DrJos (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's an excellent explanation as to why this should be nominated for RFV. I'm not sure you intended to do that, but thank you anyway. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the Flemish use the same diminutives although sometimes they end with "-ke" of "-ken", like the word "manneken", little man, the origin of the word "mannequin". --DrJos (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that answer about Flemish usage. Dictionaries, as I'm well aware with Norwegian, don't contain every word that's in use, and I sometimes wonder whether some words are used more in the oral form than in the written form, especially regarding inflections. Donnanz (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to find unambiguous citations of the challenged (intransitive) sense, but there are numerous transitive citations on Google Books, so I have added a transitive sense with three citations. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it's OK, but the contributor forgot about, or ignored, the British spelling armour. Is there another way of expressing it, e.g. chink in one's armour? Donnanz (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes, if we are diligent, we add one redirect for each common variant. In this case it would be the possessive pronouns in place of the. In this case it is not just possessive pronouns that could fit in that slot but the possessives of many nouns, proper and common, but we think users can manage that. Whether the lemma form has one's or the doesn't matter that much — if we are diligent. DCDuringTALK 23:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

With mods to the entry I'm now satisfied. I will leave it a week to see if any further comments are forthcoming before withdrawing the RFV. Donnanz (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

chink(s) in ... armor gets 92 hits at COCA. 37 use the. The rest use a possessive of a nominal, ie, more than half. At the very least we should have redirects from forms using all the possessive personal pronouns and a usage note. DCDuringTALK 01:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The contributor is now permanently banned for persistently making dodgy entries, so this must have been one of the better entries made. By the way, Oxford has "a chink in someone's armour". Donnanz (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a Google Books Ngrams template yet? Ngrams has plenty of hits for it, and less for "chink in one's armo(u)r" (but still some). Renard Migrant (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

English entry added by an anon, possibly our old friend who's been obsessed with Japanese entries.

I can't find any evidence of this in English. I find surnames, and Portuguese. I wouldn't be surprised if this is used in subcultures, but is it used anywhere that meets CFI? I can't tell. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see: adds an asteroid-name sense to an entry for a supernatural being, adds genealogical cruft to another one, and has trouble keeping straight whether a sense belongs in the Japanese or the English section (I would be astounded if the "(childish) honorific suffix" sense is actually English)... who needs to look at the geolocation data? This is our wiki-problem child, in spades (and the IP does geolocate to Easynet in the UK, anyway). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's a 1770 German book on Latin by a Jesuit named Manuel Alvarez (title page here), in an Appendix whose first page says it's mostly compiled from a 1606 work by another Jesuit named w:Jacob Gretser (title page here). Comparing the page referenced with the corresponding page in Gretser's book, it becomes apparent that Gretser doesn't give a term for the ablative case (not surprising, since Greek doesn't have an ablative case), so Alvarez probably made it up to avoid a gap in his table. Also, both Ancient and Modern Greek were written with the same script in those days, so we can't even be sure which of those two we're dealing with. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, LSJ doesn't have this term, but it does have ἀποκομιστικός with the definition of "ablativus". Chuck Entz (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

πύληgives — Entry #1 seems to say that "αφαιρετική" comes from the Hellenistic "ἀφαιρετική" which is a substantivisation of the Hellenistic adjective "ἀφαιρετικός" a calque (?loan) from the Latin ablativus. — Entry #2 seems to say something similar.
My two Greek dictionaries give no etymology. I'm a long way from being an etymologist and my translations of etyms in Greek always worry me - Do I understand what they've written! — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 09:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That helps. It would seem that ObsequiousNewt was correct about it being a calque, but 4th century is definitely well within what we consider to be Ancient Greek. Since Ancient Greek isn't a WDL, that would be enough to verify the term for Ancient Greek, if we accept the source(s). Are they from durably archived works, or are they onine databases only? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Two (2) sources were given, not just the older German book. The terms in the book could be made up (as mentioned above), even though most grammar terms in it can be found in other sources as well (like dictionaries, (non-Greek) grammar books, translations of Greek books, Greek books like Dionysius Thrax' Tekhne Grammatike). The other source is "DGE (Span., included in logeion.uchicago.edu)", that is Diccionario Griego-Español (Greek–Spanish Dictionary; wp: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diccionario_Griego-Espa%C3%B1ol]). In DGE it is: "2 gram. ablativo πτῶσις Dosith.392, cf. Gloss.2.252.". gram. stands for (or should stand for) gramática, grammar; ablativo is Spanish for [casus] ablativus, ablative [case]; πτῶσις is Greek for casus, (grammatical) case. -- 02:23-02:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

DGE cites Dositheus, page 392, who names all six cases (and the two given names for the ablative.) LSJ has entries for the other five, but doesn't cite Dositheus for any of them—the citations seem to be limited to a baker's dozen translations of Latin words. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 16:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You know perfectly Well our best bet is to come on like a sister act. We play it like we're into threesomes p160 "The Mangler of Malibu Canyon" Jennifer Colt (2006) Crown Publishing ISBN 9780767923910

I did briefly think of them as candidates for a sister act in a ménage a trois. p229 "The Life and Times of Harry Broadtape" John Johnson (2006) Lulu ISBN 9781411688353

It was suggested that, perhaps, the two would give some consideration to performing a sister act, a la menage a trois. A flat, "no," was their answer. p340 "Our Father: Recollections of a Small Town Boy" Joseph Brucato (2003) Universe ISBN 9780595269310

Rfv-sense for the metaphorical usage "finishing touch; the final effort leading to a completed project, such as putting in the last nail". It seems reasonable, but I'm not sure how to search for it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The only figurative use in this century AFAICT from Google Books is in stratigraphy, where it refers to a designation of a given stratigraphic layer in a formation as the marker for the start of a geological time period [as the unchallenged definition says. d'oh]. Last spike is apparently used more commonly in railroad construction. DCDuringTALK 14:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

While this seems attested, it has the properties of a defective verb. Some verbs in Dutch only appear as non-finite forms, perhaps even just the infinitive. Are there any cases of this being used as a "real" verb, or is it only the gerund? —CodeCat 22:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Of the Latin term, you mean? Looking at Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/tréyes, it seems more likely that tribus derives in a straightforward fashion from the dative/ablative *trimós; but I may be wrong.

At risk of sounding pedantic, I should note that we don't normally verify etymologies at RFV. This, that and the other (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not pedantic that's standard. This page is big enough without it being used for things it's not designed for. Oh and FWIW I'd happily move this page to WT:Requests for attestation so it doesn't get misused nearly as much. The mistake is a common one and understandable. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a BP matter. It might not be a bad idea, but it's not to be decided here. DCDuringTALK 19:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A kind of sci-fi device. I think this only appears in the Empire of Man series by David Weber and John Ringo, thus might fail WT:FICTION. Equinox◑ 15:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Here’s one use independent from Empire of Man: [95]. — Ungoliant(falai) 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It definitely does not only appear in Empire of Man

[96] Dawn of the Molycirc - 2007 forum post - The molycirc, or molecular circut would allow an electronic device the size of a modern desktop computer to be reproduced on somethign smaller than a postage stamp. This is potentially huge

[97] Tattered Skies - Part one : "No we don't, Hamilton." I said, sighing and pushing a hand back through my hair. "We've been over this. I deal with your shit because you don't fuck with mine, and this has always gone smoothly, but your little playboy bunny here has lost half her secondary logic array, how I don't feel like asking because I happen to believe it has something to do with one of your odd fetishes, and that's molycirc, Hamilton, even I don't have that much blank molycirc template laying around."Kenny Casperson (2008) creative writing forum post

[100]Many molycirc blocks were actually taken from the PlayStation IX VR system, with coding available on VirtuaNet, and gave the analyst teams no clue as to the helmet's origins. (2007) community-based RPG

[101]“They ripped out the molycircs along with the initiator plugs this time.” Cor reported. Santee glared into the opened panel before him. (2006) Star Wars fanfic forum posting

[102]and now we have the molycirc s that so much 80's scifi promised as the future of computing. awesome. (2012) -- Gizmag comments section posting

Something deep within his molycirc heart seemed to be beating against the confining cage of his chest's synthetic composites p105 "A Might Fortress" David Weber (2010) ISBN 9781429961356 -- this is not "Empire of Man", this is "Safefold"-series

Another three keystrokes and that portion of the Department of State's molycirc memory core where those notes had been stored was reformatted ch54 "War of Honor" David Weber (2002) ISBN 9780743435451 -- this is not "Empire of Man", this is "Honorverse"-series

The molycirc shouldn't be possible in this universe. p176 "Claws that Catch" (2008) John Ringo & Travis TaylorISBN 9781416555872 -- this is not "Empire of Man", this is "Looking Glass"-series

Before I decided to put the "law" definition of the word, I'm really not sure what part of speech it is... I just thought it is likely a noun coz it is a specific thing... This word just got stuck in my head as I'm a former law student studying civil law and I'm actually surprised that there is no definition about it here on wikt... But if you guys think the definition does not make sense, feel free to remove it... CHEERS! =) Alcohkid (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Needs to meet the fictional-universe part of CFI, but it looks like a clearcut case of a strictly in-universe term. This is modern Latin, so there should be three independent cites. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In the past, we have (at least sometimes) required three quotations for modern Latin. See Talk:birotula for one such discussion. Maybe we should modify WT:WDL to reflect this. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The header over the link to hoes is "Alternative forms" (not e.g. "Alternative spellings", which isn't a standard header anywhere, anyway, even when the only difference is spelling/orthography). Alternative forms may or may not have the same pronunciation; see e.g. epizootic and grievous. Where is it being claimed that huus and hoes have the same pronunciation? (The usage note? I assume it's contrasting other orthographies/variants like hus / hūs / etc. But it could be changed to form for clarity.) - -sche(discuss) 03:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(Yes, the usage note). I don't think anyone would write hus (the vowel is long). I don't know an orthography which uses hūs (but I don't even know one orthography well enough to write Low Saxon). As I understand it, Veluws huus and Sallaands huus might look and sound the same, but they have different etymologies. Veluws regularly has the umlaut oe → uu, but Sallaands hasn't (well, it has umlaut for diminutives and plurals), so huus can only be a loanword from Dutch.

If someone from Twente (outside Vriezenveen) would write huus, they probably also write muus (or one of their parents is from a region saying huus). The "German" use of "uu"/"üü" is better suited for Sallaands and Twents than "Dutch" "oe"/"uu", but almost everyone speaker of Dutch Low German has already learned Dutch spelling conventions. --80.114.178.7 07:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, this isn't the right place to raise this. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

google books:strijderin gets a fair number of hits, but I don't read Dutch well enough to know if any of them are scannos for strijderin or if those that aren't scannos actually mean "female warrior". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A more tight search is google books:"strijderin", with quotation marks. I did use this search, and I did click on a couple of the found items to see the scans, to find nothing that looks like an attesting quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Portuguese. I also recommend that Italian and Dutch editors investigate the existence of the word in Italian and Dutch. — Ungoliant(falai) 22:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The whole page is entirely the work of the contributor who created the Old English lemma for Picelemu- I wouldn't trust anything on it. The Mapudungan entry at lolol looks pretty questionable, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If Dutch and Italian people don't call it Lolol, then what do they call it? —CodeCat 01:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they don’t call it anything. It is a tiny faraway city. — Ungoliant(falai) 01:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It does have an entry in the Italian Wikipedia. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this form is mentioned in Wheelock's Latin, but I don't know whether they give it as an unattested reconstruction or just rare and archaic, and I don't have the book handy to check. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know; I only looked up the past participle of fero, not the word for "wide". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Perseus' copy of Lewis and Short has "sterno, strāvi, strātum, 3 […] cf.: strages, struo, torus, and lātus, adj., old Lat. stlatus, to spread out, spread abroad; to stretch out, extend". Wallace Martin Lindsay's Short Historical Latin Grammar marks tlatus with an asterisk as a reconstruction, but does not so mark stlatus; it says the derived term stlattarius was used by Juvenal. - -sche(discuss) 21:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Then it's probably fine. I wanted to check because it was also created by this user who flooded us with unattested entries that I speedied en masse. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

We now treat Old Latin as its own language, owing to the significant differences between classical and pre-classical Latin. Is this attested in Latin or Old Latin? —CodeCat 03:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "foreigner serving another country". The real test is whether cites can be found that do not fall under sense 1, which is the only one that I see attested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

RFV of the last two senses. Each has one citation discussing how a term* is used in Arabic. *(Presumably the term they discuss is the Arabic etymon of zenana, but neither citation actually uses zenana or its Arabic etymon at all.) - -sche(discuss) 20:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

RFD is the place for deletions, and I'm not questioning the entry, just the content. Donnanz (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Draughty redirects to drafty, so it is doubly important to have the definition right, let alone the comparatives. Donnanz (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's one of the two places! Uncited entries get deleted after 30 days, I oppose the deletion of the entry 'drafty'. Strong keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you looking for attesting quotations, do you want to discuss whether the comparative and superlative forms are correct, or is there some other reason you're posting here? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you all read the reason for this RFV properly. But if you feel it's an RFC matter, move it there. I'm not looking for quotations, just verification of comparatives etc. by native American users, not pseudo-American ones. Donnanz (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This was taken from Century Dictionary, following their entry for foresketch. As I am rather wont to do, I go through the dictionaries word by word in order, so it got added. Yet, I too cannot seem to find anywhere (at least on Google Books) where this is actually used...double Hmm. Leasnam (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Not much on Google Books. If it's cited it should almost certainly be tagged "rare" or "obsolete". This, that and the other (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone added two cites: the first, I am certain, is not actually from 1975; the phrase is present in a critical analysis of some kind of play, the exact nature of which I can't determine. The second may be accurate, although it could just as well be a typo for "unshaded". This, that and the other (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The first cite is in the OED and listed as circa 1500. The OED also lists 3 other cites, all of which are circa 1300. I do no believe this exists in modern English. —JohnC5 06:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this attested? We currently have it as an English entry with the definition "An item of possession that embarrasses the owner and cannot be easily discarded. Schrankschanden are often of inferior quality"; is this attested in use per WT:ATTEST in any language at all? See also lowercase schrankschande and the RFV of it at Talk:schrankschande. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

More than three citations of this word can be found on Google Books. [103][104][105][106][107] It usually seems to come in quotation marks or otherwise set off from the rest of the text, though, so I'm not sure whether it is really an English sense distinct from the Latin sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

We haven't defined it as a noun yet. As a multilingual dictionary we can include such words under the appropriate language header of the original language, so we don;t lose the content, though some ordinary users (especially of tabbed languages) and repackagers of our English content may miss this kind of thing.

Even if we decide that the use in inscriptions and in italics in running English text does not make it English, we can both preserve the integrity of our principles of inclusion and make sure that users don't miss this by attesting the noun sense (provided it can be attested, of course) and including the Latin etymology in the English section. DCDuringTALK 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. You're saying that it could be identified as a Noun (with the noun senses) under the Latin language. But then this would be missed by people reading English. And so, I guess, your solution to this is to include it in the "English" section with the etymology of Latin (which is what I did originally, although the Etymology is copied from the GCIDE, and probably not up to Wiktionary standards). Only now User:CodeCat has changed the language to "Translingual"? —This comment was unsigned.

I was saying that it could probably be attested as an English noun, but would need a definition that fitted its use as an English noun. I have provided a new English noun definition and found three citations that, I think, count as attestation. Please review.

For it to be Translingual I think we would have to attest it, not typographically distinguished, in more than one language or have some translingual authority recognize its use (as for taxonomic names). This is a particularly complicated little bit of 'legalism', not likely to be the norm for contributions from the Webster 1913 supplement. DCDuringTALK 16:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this help! I have found a bunch of GCIDE definitions not in Wiktionary and I thought I'd put a toe in the water and try to enter one. It is true that I have not found a non-typographically-distinguished version of "Pinxit" referring to the mark which occurs after the signature OR the work as a whole, although that's how it's defined by Wikipedia (grin). Anyway, my JSTOR 'free' bookshelf is used up, so in 14 days I may continue looking. --Pnelsonmusic (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't the quotations now in the entry show this use? DCDuringTALK 17:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess so! Sorry, I mis-read your definition to identify the signature as a whole, and not the word after the signature. Thanks again.

Oddly enough, there are plenty of Google Books hits- until you look at them. The dictionary ones are due to either Google's OCR not recognizing that the Fraktur uppercase H is a letter, or to the scan missing the left-hand side of the page. The other hits seem to be mostly "... auch laut". It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that has trouble reading Fraktur... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a minor chance this is supposed to be separate from the Ach-Laut as some regions have a three-way distinction of [ç] - [x] - [χ]. The word "auch" would have that velar [x] which is distinct from the uvular Ach-Laut. Though, I couldn't find any cites for this term. And the usage of "uch-Laut" is scarce. Korn (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only can I not find anything for this Irish word, I can't even find anything for its English gloss "photoarchaeology". (Archaeology performed by means of photographs? Digging up ancient photons out of the ground?) The English word being a redlink, however, I'm only RFVing the Irish. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As regards the English, your former guess seems to be correct: ref. [108]. It's not altogether a ridiculous idea: taking an infrared photo of a site, and seeing if there are IR-visible differences in the vegetation which might indicate underground formations, for example. But it's highly specialised, very likely obsolete (belonging to a brief period when it was considered its own thing, rather than one of the tools of an archaeologist), and I also can't find a single attestation of the Irish anywhere which isn't from here, or an automated dictionary hoover. --Catsidhe(verba, facta) 22:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)